A.07.24_Solicitation_Amendment_W912DQ-17-R-4000-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Air Traffic Control Tow er, McConnell AFB

Purpose of the amendment is to revise technical specifications and update proposal submission requirements. PLEASE SEE SF30 Continuation Page for more details.

Proposals remain due 12:00 PM CST 24 February 2017.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Feb-2017

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-17-R-4000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Jan-2017

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

09-Feb-2017

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:

W912DQ-17-R-4000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0001

KC-46A: FY17 Air Traffic Control Tower McConnell AFB, Kansas

The SOLICITATION is amended as follows:

NOTE: Deleted text is shown with strikethrough. Added text is shown with underline.

1. RFP SECTION 00 21 00: Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Factors, and Basis of Award is deleted and replaced in its entirety. Added text is shown with underline. A copy accompanies this amendment.

2. SPECIFICATIONS:

a. Section 23 05 93 Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC, Paragraph 1.5.7 Sustainability, has been revised to remove the requirements for PTI Testing per NASA RCBEA GUIDE. See attached.

Perform the following PTI as an integral part of the TAB process per the most recent edition of the

NASA RCBEA GUIDE:

a. Fans:

(1) Vibration Analysis.

(2) Balance Test and Measurement.

(3) Alignment (laser preferred).

(4) Lubricating Oil Test.

(5) Thermodynamic Performance Test.

b. HVAC Ducts:

(1) Operational Test.

(2) Ductwork Leak Testing (DALT); Pre-Final DALT report, Final DALT report.

c. Piping Systems:

(1) Vibration Analysis.

(2) Infrared Thermography.

d. Valves:

(1) Hydrostatic Test.

(2) Airborne Ultrasonic Test (optional).

(3) Thermodynamic Performance Test (optional).

(4) Infrared Thermography (optional).

3. APPENDICIES:

APPENDIX E is deleted. A new Table of Contents accompanies this amendment.

4. Offerors are required to acknowledge receipt of this amendment. Failure to acknowledge this amendment may cause rejection of the proposal.

5. General Decision Number KS170062 dated 01/06/2017 has not been changed and remains in full effect.

6. The due date for proposals is NOT changed.

7. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force.

RFP SECTION 00 21 00: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS,

EVALUATION FACTORS, AND BASIS OF AWARD – BEST VALUE –

DESIGN-BID-BUILD

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear and coherent.

The technical proposal shall address the offeror’s proposed approach to fully perform the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the RFP.

2.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

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 in accordance with the solicitation and amendments, if applicable:

U.S. Army Engineer, Kansas City District 635 Federal Building / Room 647 ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Carol Hodges 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2824

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

a. 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 proposal shall consist of two (2) Volumes:

(1) Volume 1, Technical Proposal (Tabs A through D)

(2) Volume 2, Price Proposal, (Tab A), consisting of a price for all line items in the corresponding bid schedule and acknowledgment of all amendments to the solicitation.

b. Proposal Characteristics

(1) Each Volume shall contain a table of contents. 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 with the title clearly visible at the bottom right corner. Offerors shall limit Volume 1, Technical Proposal, to a maximum of 30 pages including. Pages in excess of 30 will not be evaluated.

(2) Volumes 1 & 2 shall be contained within separate 3-ring loose leaf binders and submitted in the following quantities (no heat or spiral bound volumes).

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal Original & 4 copies; 1 CDs Volume 2 – Price Proposal Original & 1 copy; 1 CD

Electronic copies shall also be provided on CD/DVDs in PDF format.

(3) The Offeror’s name, address, signature and telephone number shall appear on any document submitted to be evaluated. Each Volume of the proposal shall be identified by the Solicitation Number, Volume Number, name, address, and telephone number of the offeror on the cover page. Each Volume shall also contain a table of contents; list of tables, list of figures, list of appendices, list of acronyms, and at the bottom left side of each page the volume number shall be included. The list of acronyms should include all acronyms appearing in that volume.

Offerors should clearly state the original copy of each volume. The cover page of each Volume shall be properly printed with: i) the project title – Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), McConnell AFB; ii) the name, address, and telephone number of the Offeror submitting the proposal, and the name of the Offeror’s point of contact; and one of the following on each volume in bold letters:

VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

(4) The Proposal’s clarity, organization and cross referencing are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. General cross-references or cross referencing guides will not be considered appropriate cross-references.

(5) The Proposal shall be organized by factors. They shall be described in separate sections, appropriately tabbed in a report form. All pages of each factor shall be sequentially numbered.

Elaborate or lengthy presentations are not necessary or desirable.

(6) The Technical narrative shall be written in a way to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements, but should not simply parrot the specifications. The Technical proposal shall not refer the reviewer to information contained in the Price proposal.

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

1. Prospective Offerors shall submit contracting and technical inquiries and questions concerning this solicitation document via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet.

A. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the system. To self-register, go to the aforementioned web page and click on the BID tab. Select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the Bidder Inquiry Key for this solicitation listed below, your email address, and then click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on the next screen is correct and click continue.

B. From this page, you may view all bidder inquiries or add a new inquiry.

C. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their questions via email, followed by an answer to their questions after it has been processed by our technical team.

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

D. The Solicitation Number is: W912DQ-17-R-4000, Air Traffic Control Tower, McConnell Air Force

Base, Kansas

E. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: VE4XC9-RWAGCY

F. The Plan Room Key is: S56Q4Z-BX77WH

2. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 7 days prior to the date proposals are due at 4 p.m. CST in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

6.0 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 signed 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 2: Similar Work 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 Contract 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 Solicitation for [insert project name], [insert name of subcontractor/teaming partner] will perform the following work required by the Solicitation.

[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:

7.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to select, without discussions, the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the following relationship between price and technical merit.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following evaluation factors: Key Personnel, Similar Work Experience, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price. The non-price factors are not of equal importance as shown in Table 3 below.

The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating on any individual factor will not be considered for award.

Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

8.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with informal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible offeror who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all technically acceptable, responsible proposals received in response to this particular solicitation.

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 SSEB is comprised of separate Technical and Price teams.

The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

Source Selection Procedure

The source selection procedures will begin with an initial review of proposals and continue with a technical and price evaluation conducted by the SSEB. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria identified above. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA, who will perform a trade off analysis of the proposals based on the Best Value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The SSA will also make the final source selection decision or determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications prior to the establishment of a competitive range, or to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those Offerors that are included in the competitive range. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to do so if determined necessary. All communications leading to establishment of the competitive range will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.306b.

If a competitive range is established, discussions will be conducted with Offerors who are included in the competitive range. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final revised proposals (if applicable), the SSEB will complete the evaluation and establish the final technical ratings and present them to the SSA. The SSA will then perform a trade-off analysis of the proposals based on the Best Value to the Government, price, and other factors considered, and make the final source selection decision.

The proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated individually to select the most advantageous proposal. To be considered acceptable, each Offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors listed above. Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the Offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

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

9.0 TECHNICAL RATING

The Source Selection Team (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. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Technical Risk Rating Method

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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

10.0 DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

11.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

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

15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

12.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The Government will select a single offeror 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. Relative Weight of Evaluation Factors

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance Vol 1 Tab A Factor 1 Key Personnel This factor is more important than

Factor 4 and equal in importance to Factors 2 and 3.

Vol 1 Tab B Factor 2 Similar Work Experience This factor is more important than Factor 4 and equal in importance to Factors 1 and 3.

Vol 1 Tab C Factor 3 Performance Confidence This factor is more important than Factor 4 and equal in importance to Factors 1 and 2.

Vol 1 Tab D Factor 4 Small Business Participation Plan This Factor is less important than Factors 1, 2, and 3

Vol 2 Tab A Factor 5 Price All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

VOLUME 1 - TAB A, FACTOR 1 – KEY PERSONNEL

Submission Requirements

Submit resumes for the three key personnel listed below to demonstrate and highlight the strength and expertise of the proposed team:

1. Project Manager

2. Construction Superintendent

3. Construction Quality Control Manager

Limit resumes for each key personnel to two (2) pages. Each resume must be accompanied by a signed commitment from the proposed individual to work on this project if awarded to the offeror.

The resumes must include the following qualification information:

Proposed Role Relevant education (Degrees) Certifications, professional positions or other relevant professional qualifications/training Years of professional construction experience Years of experience with current firm Years of experience in proposed role to include number of years with the offeror on this solicitation.

The resumes should also describe the proposed key personnel’s experience on projects. Include the following information:

Project name, location, beginning and completion date, and final contract cost.

The individual’s role on the project in enough detail to demonstrate level of involvement.

What project submitted in Factor 2 Similar Work Experience, if any, the individual participated in and what role they held.

What projects submitted in Factor 2 Similar Work Experience, if any, the proposed individual has worked with the other proposed team members.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the three key personnel proposed for this project.

The proposal will be rated Unacceptable for this factor if the following minimum requirements are not met:

1. Project Manager: minimum of three years of experience as a Project Manager employed by offeror

2. Construction Superintendent: minimum of three years of experience as a Construction Superintendent employed by offeror

3. Construction Quality Control Manager: minimum of three years of experience as a Construction

Quality Control Manager employed by offeror

The evaluators will award strengths and weaknesses based on the following:

Education, professional registration and relevant certifications, professional positions and other relevant qualifications.

Years of experience with the offeror.

Years of experience in the proposed role.

Experience working on projects listed in the proposal for Factor 2.

Experience working on previous projects submitted in Factor 2 with other proposed key personnel in Factor

1.

Experience working on airfield or control tower projects

VOLUME 1 - TAB B, FACTOR 2 – SIMILAR WORK EXPERIENCE

Offeror shall submit a portfolio of at least two and no more than five projects that demonstrate experience on military or commercial construction projects similar to the Design-Bid-Build Construction of Air Traffic Control Tower at McConnell AFB, Kansas, described in this RFP. To be considered similar, the projects must be comparable in magnitude and scope to the construction being acquired by this RFP, i.e., new vertical construction of four stories or more, active airfield construction experience, or major repairs/upgrades of existing air traffic control towers. Project magnitude may be defined as, but is not limited to the following: dollar amount, square feet, similar materials, similar trades or all of the above. Individual projects submitted do not have to meet all aspects of the definition of similar. However, the portfolio of projects submitted should collectively meet the definition of “similar” provided above.

To be considered, a project shall be at least 75% complete or completed within the last ten years.

For similar work experience gained by the offeror while a subcontractor, the offeror should provide a description of their role as the subcontractor. The description shall include the type of work performed, the dollar value of the work performed, and the percentage of work completed. The description shall also include an explanation of why such experience is similar to this project, the prime contractor’s contract number, and contact information for the prime contractor and government or owner representative for the project.

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the experience or past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner, the offeror must submit a signed 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 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).

The offeror shall provide the following information for each submitted project:

(a) Project Title

(b) Location

(c) Contract Number

(d) Project Delivery Method: Indicate whether the project was Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build, or Design Only

(e) Designer of Record

(f) Role of Offeror: Indicate type and percentage of work performed by the offeror or offeror’s team member.

(g) Total Dollar Amount: Indicate whether the amount includes design only, construction only, or both design and construction.

(h) Construction Start and Completion Dates:

(i) Description of the similarity of the Project to the work required by this RFP:

Describe how the project is similar to the building of a new facility or major renovation that is similar in size and scope to Air Traffic Control Tower described in this solicitation.

(j) 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 the extent of recent, similar work experience of the prime contractor and committed team members as outlined above in submission requirements.

The Government will evaluate the extent of similar work experience for strengths and weaknesses in the following areas listed in order of relative importance from most important to least important:

Projects that include air traffic control tower new construction.

Projects that demonstrate more experience with multiple story, new vertical construction. A story is defined as an occupy-able floor or 12 feet of vertical construction.

Projects that demonstrate prior teaming experiences with significant subcontractors committed on this proposal.

Projects that demonstrate the offeror performing as the prime contractor.

Projects that demonstrate experience at military installations.

VOLUME 1 - TAB C, FACTOR 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 2- Similar Work Experience, the offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the solicitation to a representative of the owner that 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. 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, Carol Hodges, via email at Carol.W.Hodges@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 Carol Hodges at (816) 389- 3732.

If a submitted project includes a final CCASS/CPARS evaluation, it is not necessary to also submit a completed PPQ for the same project.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 2, 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 reach, e.g., Contractor’s copy of CPARS evaluations. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for all Joint Venture partners whose experience is being relied on for Factor 2.

Offerors should organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 2 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-5, so that reviewers can match the owner’s opinion with the corresponding Factor 2 Project. 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), 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

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

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate recency. Projects completed within the past 10 years will be considered recent.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will then evaluate relevancy. The relevancy determination will be based on the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 Similar Work Experience. 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.

In reviewing each recent and relevant past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will then evaluate the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) to determine the performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does 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 gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The SSEB will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see Table 5 below). A separate quality assessment rating is not required.

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. At the conclusion of the assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 5. The SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating may be worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

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

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

AND

PAST PERFROMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Date______________ To: ______________________________

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 Engineer District, Kansas City ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Carol Hodges 635 Federal Building / Room 647 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2824

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to Carol.W.Hodges@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 Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed E VG S M U N 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)

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure 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 safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

VOLUME 1 – TAB D, FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

All offerors, both small and large businesses, are required to submit Small Business Participation Plan information in accordance with DFARS 215.304. Offerors will be evaluated on their level of commitment to small business participation and should provide support for an aggressive level of small businesses participation in the performance of the acquisition.

Submission Requirements: The Small Business Participation Plan and (if…