W912BV22R0009_Amendment 0002.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

Amendment 0002 hereby edits section 00 22 00 of the solicitation.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Contrat Specialist: Lindsey Byfield, Lindsey.M.Byfield@usace.army.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 33

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Jan-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 W912BV22R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Dec-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03-Jan-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:

W912BV22R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCESS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I

SECTION 00 22 00

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURE

1.0. OVERVIEW OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.1 This is a two-phase competitive solicitation for a up to five firm, fixed-price MATOCs, which will be awarded using the Best Value Trade-Off Process.

1.2. Phase 1. The first phase consists of a process known in commercial design-build (DB) as the “Request for Qualifications” or the acronym: “RFQ”. This solicitation refers to it as “Phase 1”. In Phase 1 of the 2-phase 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 no more than five (5) of the highest rated Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the MATOC contracts in Phase 2.

1.3. 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.

1.4. Offerors will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method.

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

1.5. 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 is 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). 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 cost proposal. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in making the final best-value determination for award. 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 cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

1.6. Initial Task Order Project. Those Offerors selected to compete during Phase 2 of the solicitation shall submit Technical and Cost (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 cost proposal will be used to evaluate price for the basic MATOC contracts.

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

1.7. Task Orders. Fixed-price task orders shall normally be issued bilaterally against this MATOC. Individual task orders will be competed among the contracts awarded under this MATOC pursuant to FAR 16.505. Generally, award will be made to the contractor that provides the best value to the Government, unless otherwise indicated.

Source Selection decisions will not be subject to the Disputes Clause of this MATOC (FAR 52.233-1 or its Alternate).

1.8. Performance of Work. If the Contractor is awarded a contract, the contractor shall perform work in accordance with Section 00 90 00 DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT, 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

Any legally organized Small Business firm may submit a proposal. The size standard for this solicitation is as shown in Section 00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

2.2. Where to Submit

Pro Forma Information will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the address shown in Section 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS.

2.3. Pro Forma Requirements to be provided for Phase 1

This information should be submitted as a separate .pdf file named “Pro Forma Requirements”. This information consists of the following:

2.3.1. The Offeror shall submit a cover letter containing:

2.3.1.1. Solicitation number.

2.3.1.2. Name, address, email, and telephone and fax numbers of the Offeror.

2.3.1.3. 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.

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

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

2.3.1.6. Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Codes for the Offeror, and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1: Specialized Experience.

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

2.3.3. The completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representations and Certifications), and printed entity record from System for Award Management (SAM).

2.3.4. Letter from Surety stating Offeror is capable of providing a Bid Guarantee in Phase 2 as required in FAR 52.228-1.

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

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

2.4. 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 via DoD SAFE or email ONLY (no mailed proposals). DoD SAFE web site: https://safe.apps.mil/.

The following email addresses must be used to request a drop off code if using DoD Safe for proposal submission, or for direct email:

Brian.Welch@usace.army.mil Rudolfo.Morales@usace.army.mil

2.5. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.5.1. In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information consisting of 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 result in an unacceptable rating. 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).

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

2.5.3. Size of Printed Matter Submissions. Proposal materials shall be submitted via DoD SAFE website https://safe.apps.mil/, or via email, containing the proposal in PDF file format using Adobe Acrobat software.

Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. 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, unless another paper size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Do not use alternative paper sizes (e.g., 11” x 14” or 11” x 17” sheets) unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. All page margins must be at least 1 inch wide but may include headers and footers. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. Page limitations are as shown below:

• Tab A – No page limit

• Factor 1 (Tab B) – 25 pages

• Factor 2 (Tab C) – no page limit

• Factor 3 (Tab D) – 42 pages

• Factor 4 (Tab E) – 30 pages

• Tab F – no page limit

The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the total page limitation noted above and in the individual Factor limitations noted in the paragraphs below. The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

2.5.4. Table of Contents. The proposals shall contain a detailed Table of Contents.

2.5.5. Document Type. Proposals shall contain the entire proposal in .pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software to print to a .pdf file; do NOT scan the document(s) into a .pdf file. The text portion of the complete proposal shall be contained as a single .pdf file, and the “find” function must be usable. The technical proposal will be appropriately organized using the tabs specified in the chart below. The Pro Forma requirements shall be submitted as a separate file as required by paragraph 2.2. above.

2.5.6. Cover Sheet. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, point of contact), project description, and solicitation number shall be provided. 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.

2.5.7. Sections of the proposal shall be bookmarked (linked to the index) using the Adobe Acrobat Software bookmark feature to move easily from one section to another as detailed in this section. The SF 1442 may be scanned and shall 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. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper.

*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.

2.5.8. Labeling. Each volume of the proposal shall be identified by the solicitation number (W912BV22R0009), project title (TABF Roof MATOC, SWD, Tulsa District), name, address, and telephone number of the Offeror, and the following on the volume in bold letters.

2.5.9. Proposal Revisions. Proposal revisions shall be submitted as whole page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The reason for 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”, shall show the date of revision. A revised copy of the entire proposal in .pdf format shall be provided.

2.5.10. “Confidential” Labeling. “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 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. Cost information will be limited to Bonding Capacity as part of the Phase I submittal.

Location Factor Description Relative Importance

TAB A N/A SF 1442

Proposal Data Sheet

Not Rated

TAB B Factor 1 Specialized Experience 1st

TAB C Factor 2 Past Performance 4th TAB D Factor 3 Design Support 3rd (slightly less important than Factor 4)

TAB E Factor 4 Management Effectiveness 2nd (slightly less important than Factor 1)

TAB F 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 SF1442. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

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

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Above submission items are not rated.

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1 OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects using the Company Specialized Experience Form

– Construction or Prime Contractor (Attachment 2) and/or the Company Specialized Experience Form – Design Firm or In-House Design Capability (Attachment 3) at the end of the section. If any of the information required is not included in these forms, the Offeror will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements as outlined in Section 01 11 00 STATEMENT OF WORK. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement or letters of commitment for all teaming contractors, agreements and letters of commitment will not count towards the page limitations, failure to provide the joint venture agreement or letters of commitment will result in the proposal being evaluated as unacceptable.

5.1.2. Offerors shall submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or government, private or commercial customers. The Offeror shall select the design firm(s). If projects were design-build (D-B), so identify them. Prime Contractors must submit at least one project (not required to be roof-specific) with a total value of $5,000,000 or greater and one roofing project with a total value of $3,000,000 or greater. Design Firm(s) must submit the design of at least one roofing project with a value of $3,000,000 or greater. All other roofing projects for both the Prime Contractor and Design Firm(s) shall be at least $1,000,000 each. Both the prime contractor and the design firm(s) shall each submit projects for the following. Each project submitted for both the prime and design firms shall be no more than two (2) page per project.

5.1.2.1. Submit three (3) projects that are building renovation type and/or new construction projects to included architectural and structural design of roofing projects of similar size and complexity as the TAC, B9001 facility. Indicate whether the project was a renovation or new construction. Emphasis may be given to renovation type projects as opposed to new construction.

5.1.2.2. Submit two (2) projects as chosen by the contractor to demonstrate specialized experience relevant to the contract’s basic scope of work. In particular, experience handling coal tar pitch and installing Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) type roof systems.

5.1.2.3. Provide a discussion (maximum of three pages) of the following items:

5.1.2.3.1. Offeror’s success in coordinating with the Government and building occupants during work on interior spaces and/or removal of large structures on the roof in support of roofing renovation to minimize disruption of occupant functions within the occupied building.

5.1.2.3.2. Offeror’s success in minimizing the effects of foreign object damage/debris (FOD) to the building and surrounding area(s).

5.1.2.3.3. Offeror’s experience in removal of abandoned equipment from roofs, concentrating on methods utilized.

5.1.2.3.4. Offeror’s experience in designing/installing a Class A fire-rated roof using EPDM roofing system.

5.1.2.3.5. Offeror’s experience installing secondary roof drainage systems on roof structures similar in size.

5.1.3. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

5.1.4. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

5.1.5. 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 and 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. (See Attachment 9 for sample commitment letter.) The agreement must include the information above and shall be submitted as part of the Pro Forma requirements but may be considered as part of the Factor 1 evaluation. 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.

5.1.5.1. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as the offering Joint Venture. The Offeror must provide five (5), but no more than ten (10) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

5.1.5.2. If the Offeror cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV to meet the minimum requirement, 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 must satisfy a minimum requirement of three (3) projects, to include any performed as the JV.

5.1.5.3. If the JV has no "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV, then each member of the JV must provide three (3) to five (5) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV member that reflect the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project. 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 5.1.1.

5.1.5.4. In addition to the examples of "Company Specialized Experience", the Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on task orders awarded as part of this MATOC and how the presented projects demonstrate the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on task orders awarded as part of this MATOC or how their experience qualifies them for their role task orders awarded as part of this MATOC. The attached “Specialized Experience" and "Past Performance Survey" forms shall be used by the Joint Venture or the JV partners.

Explain how the JV is structured.

5.1.6. Total page count for Factor 1 shall not exceed 25 pages.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent relevant specialized experience of the Offeror with similar projects. Experience with task order contracts may be demonstrated by provision of individual task orders in the experience form that meets the submission requirements as outlined in paragraph 5.1.1. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators determine the information provided indicates that the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government; and the proposal will be evaluated accordingly. The experience of individuals will not be evaluated under this factor.

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the Contractor in construction and/or design-build projects. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor.

5.2.1. To determine strengths and weaknesses, the agency will give more consideration to the following items

5.2.1.1. through 5.2.1.10. To receive credit for items 5.2.1.9. and 5.2.1.10. the contractor shall clearly indicate on the Specialized Experience forms that the proposed personnel on this project acted in the same role on the submitted project. Additionally, the key personnel resumes shall show projects submitted under this Factor indicating that they served the same role as is being proposed for this project. Failure to provide these cross references shall result in no credit being given for items 5.2.1.7. and 5.2.1.8.:

5.2.1.1. Offeror’s success in coordinating with the Government and building occupants during work on interior spaces and/or removal of large structures on the roof in support of roofing renovation to minimize disruption of occupant functions within the occupied building.

5.2.1.2. Offeror’s success in minimizing the effects of foreign object damage/debris (FOD) to the building and surrounding area(s).

5.2.1.3. Offeror’s experience in removal of abandoned equipment from roofs, concentrating on methods utilized.

5.2.1.4. Offeror’s experience installing secondary roof drainage systems on roof structures similar in size.

5.2.1.5. Fully completed projects rather than substantially complete projects.

5.2.1.6. Projects submitted under paragraph 5.1.1, 5.1.2.

5.2.1.7. Projects completed after 1 September 2016.

5.2.1.8. Fully completed projects, rather than substantially completed projects.

5.2.1.9. Projects that demonstrate experience of the personnel proposed in Factor 3 in the same role as their proposed role on this project.

5.2.1.10. Project examples demonstrating prior teaming experience of the prime contractor and the design firm to include demonstrated experience of the designer’s personnel proposed in Factor 3 in the same role as their proposed role on this project

5.2.2. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts, as described in 00 90 00 DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT, paragraph 1.1. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP.

Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

5.2.3. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems, or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.2.4. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project. To receive credit for experience of a key teaming subcontractor under this factor the Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its teaming subcontractors under Factor 3. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) must be appended to the plan under Factor 3 (not included in the page limitation).

5.2.5. The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to the projects as described in 00 90 00 DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT, paragraph 1.1, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

5.2.5.1. Number, size, type work, complexity, location.

5.2.5.2. Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of this solicitation).

5.2.5.3. Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “placing the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience).

5.2.6. Previous design-build experience is not necessary for an acceptable rating. The Government may consider previous DB experience a strength. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

6.0. TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall be evaluated on the construction projects presented in Factor 1 completed or substantially complete (at least 50% complete) in the last five (5) years. Projects submitted should reflect Design-Build and construction experience described in Section 00 90 00 DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT, paragraph 1.1. 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 elements will be evaluated:

6.0.1. Quality of Construction

6.0.2. Timeliness of Performance

6.0.3. Customer Satisfaction

6.0.4. Subcontractor Management

6.0.5. Documentation

6.0.6. Safety Record

6.1. OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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 CPARS evaluations).

6.1.1. For each project under Factor 1 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 5) included in the solicitation are 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.

6.1.2. 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 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 shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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 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.

6.1.3. 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.

6.1.4. 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 owner’ s representative if the owner’ s representative is not available.

6.1.5. 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.

6.1.6. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, 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.

6.1.7. 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 in Factor 1.

6.1.8. The Government may contact references provided as part of Factor 1 – Specialized Experience, 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.

6.1.9. No additional past performance information shall be submitted under this Factor. Offers that violate this rule unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and will be evaluated as unacceptable and may result in the contractor being removed from further consideration.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.2.1. 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. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, review and/or contact Offeror-furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

6.2.2. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating – Recent Projects. 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 ratings are described below 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 projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. The past performance relevancy rating categories are described below:

6.2.2.1 Very Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.2.2.2 Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.2.2.3 Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

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

6.2.3. Performance Confidence Rating – Past Contract Performance. 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. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of confirming quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M Manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone databases, Offeror-furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

6.2.3.1. 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.

6.2.3.2. 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

6.2.3.3. 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

6.2.3.4. 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.

6.2.3.5. 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.

6.2.4. Past Performance Rating. 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 “Unknown 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:

6.2.4.1. 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.

6.2.4.2. Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

6.2.4.3. 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.

6.2.4.4. 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.

6.2.4.5. 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.

6.2.4.6. 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.

7.0. TAB D – FACTOR 3 - DESIGN SUPPORT

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.

7.1. 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, limited to Blocks E, F, and H of an SF330.

7.1.1. Technical Approach. The offer shall provide information regarding their technical approach.

Specifically they shall address the following topics: Offeror’s Understanding, Technical Approach for Design and Construction, Collaborative Approach for Design and Construction, Planning and Scheduling, and Quality Control as described in the paragraphs below. Maximum of ten (10) pages are allowed for technical approach narratives.

7.1.1.1 Offeror’s Understanding. Describe the Offeror's understanding of the challenges, risks and technical approach with respect to design and construction of the roof system. The response must clearly illustrate the Offeror's understanding of these documents; do not simply quote references.

7.1.2. Organization. Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project.

The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s)/teaming subcontractors for which they are seeking experience credit under Factor 1. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) must be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including design and construction activities.

Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed. Phase 2 Offerors will be required to identify the specific firms chosen for performing the roofing or any other specialized design elements. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the D-B team firms, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under the Tab, “Key Personnel”.

7.1.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction. Describe the technical approach to design and construction of the roof system. Describe your proposed phasing plan for design and construction of the roofing system.

7.1.4. Collaborative Approach for Design and Construction. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during design and construction. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during roof construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings;

site visits, if any; contract completion, commissioning, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

7.1.5. Subcontractor Approach and Management. Describe how subcontractors are managed by the contractor.

Discuss how subcontract relationships are structured to assure proper balance and flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities, and properly balanced and proportioned risk management. Discuss how nonperformance by subcontractors is handled by the general contractor. Discuss the types of relationships the general contractor has with local small business subcontractors and how the general contractor promotes the development of small business subcontractors to include training, development, and mentoring. The Government wants to understand that the general contractor places emphasis on strong business relationships with subcontractors to maximize the number of quotes the general contractor obtains during proposal preparations that demonstrates market competition and the best valued prices are being provided to the Government. General Contractors that do not maintain solid business practices with small business subcontractors increase business costs to the Government.

7.1.6. Planning and Scheduling. Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan design and construction and how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction.