10-3-2017_Amendment_2.pdf

8.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to select for award the single responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation that proposes a price that is fair and reasonable, and that provides the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The selection will be based on evaluation of the following evaluation factors: Corporate Experience, Past Performance, Key Personnel, and Price.

Each of the three Non-Price factors will receive one of the following ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offerors receiving one technically “unacceptable” rating will be deemed overall technically “unacceptable” and will not be considered for award. Offerors must receive an “acceptable” rating on both technical factors to be considered for award.

The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. In the event that discussions are not necessary then we intend to award without discussions, to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

Table 1: Relative Importance of Factors

Location Factor Number

Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Corporate Experience

Equal in importance to Factor 2 and 3. and more important than Factor 3.

Factor 2 Past Performance Equal in importance to Factor 1 a n d and more important than Factor 3.

Factor 3 Key Personnel Equal in Less importancet tohan Factor 1 a n d 2.

Factor 4 Price Equal in importance to all non-price factors combined

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

9.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

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

Source Selection Team

(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 and continue with a technical evaluation conducted by the SSEB. The SSEB shall evaluate the proposals based solely on the evaluation criteria previously identified. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the SSA for decision of award, and the SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications.

To be considered acceptable, each offeror shall specifically address each of the evaluation factors.

Sufficient detail shall be provided, citing specific data as may be required, such that the proposal may be adequately evaluated. The proposal must show clearly that the offeror has an understanding of the work tasks required and has the capability and responsibility to accomplish the work.

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

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals with an overall rating of Marginal or less, regardless of the number of other proposals or their ratings.

10.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS

The technical considerations listed below in section 13.0 are of equal importance to each other. The offeror shall address each of the following factors in sufficient detail to permit a complete and comprehensive evaluation.

11.0 DEFINITIONS

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 an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit or specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during 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

The Government will select offerors based on their overall merit after consideration of the evaluation factors described above.

FACTOR Location Description

Tab A Surety Letter and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement

1 Volume 1 Tab B Corporate Experience

2 Volume 1 Tab C Past Performance

3 Volume 1 Tab D Key Personnel

Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 1 – Corporate Experience

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall submit a minimum of (3) three similar projects that have been completed (or substantially complete (90%)) by the offeror in the last (6) six years and at least a $250,000 in magnitude. Similar work under this criterion consist of design-bid-build or design-build contracts for building renovations (mechanical, electrical, and architectural systems), and/or new building construction with project size of at least $250,000.

Data presented shall include design-build or design-bid-build construction projects relevant to this requirement which your team has completed, or which are currently under construction and are substantially complete. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, state if this project represents a joint venture of the listed parties. Relevant experience will be limited to performance of projects similar in size, scope and complexity to those outlined in the RFP. If more than three projects are submitted, only the first three projects will be evaluated.

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

(a) Offeror was prime contractor on the project.

(b) Construction contract value of at least $250,000.

(c) Completed within the last 6 years as of the proposal submission date or substantially complete at the time of proposal submission. For a project to be considered substantially complete, the offeror must conclude that the project is 90% or more complete and must include a description of the work remaining to be performed on the project.

(d) The minimum number of projects that the offeror shallould provide for evaluation is three projects.

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.

The offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in construction, for the facility type (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract, as previously described. Recent experience includes projects complete or substantially complete within six (6) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP for design or construction experience. Joint Venture partners shall each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project.

Evaluation Criteria

• Acceptable: a proposal will be rated Acceptable if it meets all of the following requirements:

• Offeror was prime contractor on each project.

• Construction contract value of at least $250,000 for each project.

• Projects completed within the last 6 years as of the proposal submission date or be considered substantially complete at the time of proposal submission. For a project to be considered substantially complete, the offeror must conclude that the project is 90% or more complete and must include a description of the work remaining to be performed on the project.

• The number of projects that the offeror submitted for evaluation is (3) three projects. 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.

• Each project has similar work with of design-bid-build or design-build contracts for building renovations (mechanical, electrical, and architectural systems), and/or new building construction.

• Unacceptable: a proposal will be rated Unacceptable if it does not meet the requirements listed in the description of the Acceptable rating.

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and/or joint venture or proposed team as relevant to role as a prime contractor on this project. If an affiliate of the prime contractor or a proposed team member provides a firm commitment that the affiliate or proposed team member will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract, the Government will evaluate the affiliate’s or proposed team member’s recent, related experience for Factor 1 of this solicitation.

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 DUNS CAGE Number 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

There are three aspects to the past performance 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. For a project to be considered recent it must be completed within the past 76 years.

The SST will then 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.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c) (2)). 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 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. 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.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessment Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

NOTE: If an offeror has no relevant past performance or no information on past performance is available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. A neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

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.

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

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

VOLUME 1, TAB D, FACTOR 3 - Key Personnel

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete and submit the “Key Personnel Worksheet” included below in the RFP to provide information regarding the personnel that will fill the following key positions in the performance of this project:

• Project Manager

• Construction Superintendent

• Design Manager

• Architect Designer of Record

• Electrical Engineer Designer of Record

• Mechanical Engineer Designer of Record

• Fire Protection Engineer Designer of Record

• Structural Engineer Designer of Record

Resumes shall indicate: (1) the individual’s experience in the relevant key position and the beginning and end dates for each position. (2) Key Personnel resumes should name projects and roles that the respective personnel played on the project as well as the time in that designated role. (3) Resumes should reflect if the person was on any of the Projects submitted for Factor 1 in Phase 1 and their role in the project.

Evaluation Criteria:

• To be considered technically acceptable, an offeror’s proposal must be rated “acceptable” for all requirements that constitute the key personnel evaluation factor.

• An “acceptable” rating will be assigned to a proposal that has satisfied all of the minimum requirements of this technical evaluation factor.

• An “unacceptable” rating will be assigned to a proposal that has not satisfied one or more requirements of the key personnel evaluation factor. Key Personnel minimum requirements:

The Government will evaluate the resumes to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates that its key personnel show experience on Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build projects. Key Personnel should meet at a minimum the following qualifications (Please note: If the minimum qualifications are not met for a particular key personnel, the resume will be evaluated as a deficiency):

1. Project Manager:

a. At least three (3) years construction and construction management experience as Project Manager with Offeror's company

2. Construction Superintendent:

a. At least three (3) years’ experience as Superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors

3. Design Manager:

a. At least three (3) years design experience, managing multiple design disciplines and subcontractors

4. Architect Designer of Record:

a. A professional license as an Architect

5. Electrical Engineer Designer of Record:

a. Shall be a licensed professional engineer

6. Mechanical Engineer Designer of Record:

7. Fire Protection Engineer Designer of Record:

a. Shall be a licensed professional engineer

8. Structural Engineer Designer of Record:

(End of Summary of Changes)