SDVOSB_mod_2.pdf

W912DQ-16-R-4014

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

Kansas City SDVOSB MATOC

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify page limitations and the requirment for submitting PPQs for Corporate Experience projects.

This amendment replaces instructions to offerors for Phase 1 in its entirety.

PROPOSALS REMAIN DUE AT 1:00PM Central Time 12 May 2016

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-May-2016

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 W912DQ-16-R-4014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Apr-2016

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

02-May-2016

CODE

USACE, KANSAS CITY +

FEDERAL BUILDING CT-M, RM 647 601 EAST 12TH S

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

W912DQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization has changed from

USACE, KANSAS CITY +

CONTRACTING DIVISION FEDERAL BLDG CT 601 E 12

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

to

USACE, KANSAS CITY +

FEDERAL BLDG. CT-M RM 647; 601 E 12TH ST

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

RFP SECTION 00 22 10: PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors will submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design build and design bid build construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications and intends to invite a maximum of ten most highly rated Phase 1 offerors who submitted proposals to compete for the base MATOC pool contracts and one construction seed task order contract to Repair HVAC and Replace Domestic Supply Lines in Building 3200 at Whiteman, AFB, MO.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 1 proposal to be considered for Phase 2. PHASE 1 DOES

NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

Prior to Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to only the selected offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit a design build technical solution, key personnel, and price proposals for consideration. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a target of five contracts to the offerors whose proposals offer the best value - Trade Off proposal to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

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

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

For Phase 1, all offerors shall be required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District Federal Building Room 647 ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Dominique Howard

601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. In order to be considered for award of a contract for the requirements of this solicitation, the offeror must submit a proposal with its offer. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected. The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows:

Phase 1

Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder identified by the Solicitation Number (W912DQ-16-R-4014), project title (MATOC SDVOSB 2016), name, address, and telephone number of the Offeror. Arrange tabs as follows:

Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

TAB A, Completed SF 1442, Surety Letter, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement TAB B, FACTOR 1 Corporate Experience TAB C, FACTOR 2 Past Performance TAB D, FACTOR 3 Management Plan

2. Proposal Characteristics

a) Submit original and five copies of the proposal. Electronic copies shall also be provided on one CDs/DVDs in PDF format and be *Optical Character Recognition (OCR) compatible.

Each Volume shall contain a table of contents and all pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered. All text must be legible and easily read. The page size of the offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear. If fold-out charts are unavoidable, and are to be utilized, all sheets shall be reproduced on 11 by 17 inch, and folded to 8-1/2 by 11 inch size. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror.. Offerors shall limit proposals to a maximum of 30 pages.

A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double sided, each face will be counted as a page. TAB A (Completed SF 1442, Surety Letter, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement) and TAB C - Factor 2 – Past Performance will not be counted towards this page limit.

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

b) Offeror will submit a cover letter containing:

i. Solicitation number.

ii. 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.

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

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

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

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

e) The completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representations and Certifications), including the ORCA certification (Offerors System for Award Management extract will suffice) should be placed in a separate envelope labeled “Representation and Certifications” with one copy.

f) Letter from Surety stating Offer is capable of providing a Bid Guarantee as required in

FAR 52.228-1.

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

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

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

The Solicitation Number is: W912DQ-16-R-4014

The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase 1 is: RXZ6C9-36844M

The Plan Room Key for Phase I is: 8KP7TI-ASC4NF

*Draft Specifications for Phase II will be uploaded for review during Phase I. Final Specifications will be provided as an Amendment to those offerors selected for Phase II. All Phase II information is draft and no proposals will be accepted or evaluated.

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

4. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

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

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

8. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

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

Instructions for future ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access:

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

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

3. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 JOINT VENTURES

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

1) A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

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

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

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

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint

Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

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

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

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

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

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

If one of the Joint Venture parties possesses experience and/or past performance as a Federal Government contractor or as a Corps of Engineers contractor, that experience and/or past experience will be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

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

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

7.0 SUBCONTRACTORS/TEAMING PARTNERS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the experience or past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment to use the proposed firm on the project, signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the subcontractor/teaming partner is in some way affiliated with the offeror (for example, the subcontractor/teaming partner is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). Include the subcontractor letters of commitment in Volume 1, Factor 1: Corporate Experience.

SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT to

USE SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING

PARTNER [COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

TO: Contracting Officer, Kansas City District, United States Army Corps of Engineers

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Task Order for [insert project name]

Dear Sir or Madam:

[Insert name of offeror] and [insert name of subcontractor/teaming partner] hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event that the company receives award of the Task Order for [insert project name], [insert name of subcontractor/teaming partner] will perform the following work required by the Task Order.

[Insert list of tasks to be performed by the subcontractor/teaming partner]

Sincerely, [Authorized Official] [Legal Name of Offeror] Date:

[Subcontractor/Teaming Partner]

[Legal Name of Firm] Date:

8.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.301.

In Phase 1, the Government intends to select a maximum of ten most highly rated offerors to compete in Phase 2. The selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors. There are three non-price (technical) factors in Phase 1: Technical Factor 1 - Corporate Experience; Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance; and Technical Factor 3 - Management Plan. The non-price factors are of equal importance. Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those offerors selected in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to select for award a target of five MATOC contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to the solicitation and proposes the Best Value to the Government under a Tradeoff Process under FAR 15.101-1. The selection will be based on Factors identified in Table 1 below. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

Table 1: Relative Importance of Factors

PHASE Factor

Number

FACTOR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

1&2 1 Corporate Experience Equal to Factors 2,3,4 and 5 1&2 2 Past Performance Equal to Factors 1,3,4 and 5 1&2 3 Management Plan Equal to Factors 1,2,4 and 5

2 4 Technical Solution Equal to Factors 1,2,3 and 5 2 5 Key Project Personnel Equal to Factors 1,2,3 and 4 2 6 Price Significantly less important than

Factors 1,2,3,4 and 5 combined

When applying the tradeoff process, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

9.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with formal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

Source Selection Team

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with formal source selection procedures. The principal objective of Phase 1 is to select a maximum of ten of the most highly qualified offerors to be considered for Phase 2. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

(a) Source Selection Team

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

(b) Source Selection Procedure

The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals received in response to Phase 1 of this solicitation. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified below. To be considered for evaluation, each offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors listed below. Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will select a maximum of ten most highly qualified offerors. The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications.

The Government will select a maximum of ten most highly qualified offerors based on their overall rating after consideration of the following factors: Corporate Experience, Past Performance, and Management Plan. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals with a technical factor rating of Marginal or less, regardless of the number of other proposals or their ratings.

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

10.0 TECHNICAL RATING

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

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptable

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

Ratings will be assigned for each of the Phase 1 technical evaluation factors for each offeror. No overall rating will be assigned.

11.0 DEFINITIONS

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

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

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

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

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

12.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of offerors, and FAR 15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

13.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED IN PHASE 1

The Government will select a maximum of ten offerors based on their overall merit after consideration of the evaluation factors described above. The relative weight given to the evaluation factors is described in the table below.

Table 3 PHASE 1 – RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance Tab A SF 1442, Surety Letter and

Joint Venture Teaming Agreement N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Corporate Experience Equal to factors 2 and 3

Tab C Factor 2 Past Performance Equal to Factors 1 and 3

Tab D Factor 3 Management Plan Equal to Factors 1 and 2

VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – Corporate Experience

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit a project portfolio containing up to five example projects to demonstrate the offeror’s relevant military or commercial construction and design experience. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation; only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects.

Use the following format to provide project information:

(a) Project Title

(b) Location

(c) Contract Number

(d) Contract Type (Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build)

(e) Role of Offeror (address type of work performed, including design, percentage of work performed by the offeror, as applicable, and any proposed team members that were directly involved in this project, including work performed, roles and responsibilities)

(f) Total Dollar Amount;

(g) Start and Completion Dates. If project is not complete, indicate percentage complete and anticipated completion date

(h) Brief Description of Project. (Address how this project is similar to the types of task orders to be issued under this contract)

(i) Customer Primary Point of Contact (name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address). The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, state if the example project represents a joint venture of the listed parties.

Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate how the projects identified by the Offeror demonstrate the extent of the offeror’s Corporate Experience that is similar to the SDVOSB MATOC design-build efforts described in this solicitation’s Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the extent of experience of the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors in design, construction or design-build, as similar to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. The Government may place greater importance on projects that were Design-Build, depending on the contractor’s role and size of the project.

For a project to be considered similar and evaluated, it must meet the following minimum criteria:

a) Design-Build construction projects and/or Design-Bid-Build construction project with a value of

$2.0 M or greater.

b) Completed or substantially complete within the last 7 years as of the proposal submission date. The project will be considered substantially complete if it is 95% or more complete. If an Offeror presents a project that is less than 95% complete, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered substantially complete. The Government will determine whether the explanation is sufficient to consider the project substantially complete.

The Government will evaluate the content of each offerors' submitted Corporate Experience and will assign strengths and weaknesses based on how well each offeror's proposal demonstrates the following

a) Projects that demonstrate a successful repetitive relationship with an AE firm.

b) Projects in which the offeror was the prime contractor on the project.

c) Projects with higher contract value and complexity.

d) Projects involving new vertical construction with similar scope and magnitude as projects expected under this MATOC.

e) Projects that demonstrate historic renovation experience.

f) Projects that demonstrate sustainment, renovation and modernization projects with repeated successful relationships with subcontractors (i.e. electrical, mechanical, and civil, etc.)

VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – Past Performance Submission Requirements

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, the offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0, included in the solicitation) to a representative of the owner who can provide the owner’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project. Completed PPQ-0 forms should be submitted with your proposal. A copy of a previously completed PPQ can be submitted if it reflects a substantially complete evaluation of the project. The PPQ-0 does not have to be sent directly from the client. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ-0, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. 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, Dominique Howard, via email at Dominique.C.Howard@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact the Contract Specialist at (816) 389-3430.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information, the offeror also should submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews that are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e., Contractor’s copy of CCASS or CPARS evaluations. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, i.e. design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners, whose experience is being relied on Factor 1. If a submitted proposal includes a final CCASS/CPARS evaluation for a Factor 1 Corporate Experience project, it is not necessary to submit a completed PPQ for the same project.

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. All Past Performance Information presented will be identified in the top left hand corner of each page with the Corresponding Project Number and Title from Factor 1. There is no page limit for this factor.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview the owner’s representative on the PPQ-0, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative, if the owner’s representative is not available. 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.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), 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.

At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror. Copies of the questionnaires will not be furnished to the offeror and will remain confidential.

Evaluation Procedure

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate how relevant the recent effort is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy determination will be based on the Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria above. Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

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

At the end of the performance confidence assessment, based on an assessment of all the past performance information that was reviewed, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 5.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

AND

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

To: Date:

We have listed your firm as a reference for work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm has submitted a proposal under a project advertised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), an evaluation of our firm’s past performance will be completed by the Corps of Engineers. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the evaluation team in this process.

We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Space is provided for comments. Please respond in time for us to include the questionnaire with our proposal, which is due on ________. Only one response from each office is required. If at all possible, we suggest that you individually answer this questionnaire and then coordinate your responses with that of , to forge a consensus on one overall response from your organization. Please return completed questionnaires to the following:

If you would prefer to respond directly to USACE, your completed questionnaire may be sent to the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Dominique Howard Federal Building Room 647 601 East 12 Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to dominique.c.howard@usace.army.mil.

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy): Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if li bl ) E l i Diff4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name Title:

Phone

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE

OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH

THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED

TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES

THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING

WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S

PEFORMANCE

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

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

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

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

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of E VG S M Ub) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

E VG S M U

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Volume 1, TAB D – Factor 3 – Management Plan

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a Program Management Plan describing the Offeror’s approach to performing this task order contract. The Plan shall clearly, but concisely detail the organizational approach to program management and execution, and explain how the firm expects to handle multiple major projects at multiple locations under the contract. The plan shall include an organizational chart outlining the entities responsible for program execution. The plan shall describe the proposed management structure for the Offeror, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Offeror’s organization. It shall describe how communications within the organization and with the Corps of Engineers will be conducted. Limit the plan to ten pages or less (using a font size of no smaller than 10 pt.)

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the content of each offerors' Management Plan and will assign strengths and weaknesses based on how well each offeror's Management Plan demonstrates the following:

1. Organizational chart graphically represents the offeror’s organization in regard to other partnering firms/subcontractors/internal personnel and clearly indicates the name of the management team member (partnering firm/subcontractor/internal personnel).

2. Organizational Chart shows clears lines of authority among team members.

3. Organizational chart demonstrates the following information about all firms in the Offeror’s team, including partnering firms and subcontractors: the role/responsibility for Design Build AND for Design-Bid-Build projects AND any contractual arrangements that have been established (Project Manager, AE Design Manager, Construction Superintendent, mechanical, electrical etc...). Please reference Draft Phase 2 Factor 5 - Key Personnel for minimum experience requirements for key personnel included in the Organization Chart.

4. Management Plan clearly addresses how the Contractor will manage:

a. Multiple task orders at the same location at the same time and

b. Multiple task orders at multiple locations at the same time.

5. Management Plan identifies potential risks AND the associative mitigation for the identified risks in both design build AND design bid build projects.

6. Management Plan addresses successful coordination of AE work in conjunction with multiple task orders. Strengths and/or Weakness will be given based on the firm’s inclusion of the following items: schedule, submittals, changes, communication and other elements that would be necessary to manage AE firms successfully in a Design Build effort.

7. Management Plan addresses successful coordination between design and construction teams during all stages of design-build projects.

(End of Summary of Changes)