Amendment_Solicitation_0003_FBO.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 23

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

3/13/2018

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE W912DQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

USACE, Kansas City

CT-M, Room 647

601 East 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

See Section 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912DQ-18-R-4002

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02/13/2018

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE:

FACILITY CODE:

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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.

Small Business MATOC IDIQ

The purpose of this amendment is to update Section 00 22 10 - Phase 1 of a Phase 2 Selection Procedures. See Continuation page for further detail.

Proposal due date remains March 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM CST.

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

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The SOLICITATION is amended as follows:

1. SECTION 00 22 10 – Phase 1 of 2 Phase Selection Procedures is replaced in its entirety. NOTE: Deleted text is shown in red and/or strikethrough. Added text is shown in green underline.

2. Offeror is required to acknowledge receipt of this amendment. Failure to acknowledge this amendment may cause rejection of the proposal.

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

APPENDIX C

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 be identified in Phase 2.

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

PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICE PROPOSALS.

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 – Tradeoff 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 635

ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Robert Johnson

601 East 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2824

3.1 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-

18-R-4002), project title (Small Business MATOC 2017), name, address, and telephone number of the

Offeror. Arrange tabs as follows:

Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

TAB A, Completed SF 1442, Surety Letter, Phase I acknowledged Amendment(s) (SF30’s), Field

Office Overhead, Letters of Commitment, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement

TAB B, FACTOR 1 Corporate Experience, Letters of Commitment, TAB C, FACTOR 2 Performance Confidence

TAB D, FACTOR 3 Technical Approach

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 and a minimum of 10 point font. 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. The Cover Letter, documents filed under Volume 1 TAB A and completed Section 00 45 00 of the RFP (Representation and

Certifications) will not be counted towards the 30 page limit.

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. Factor 2 – Performance Confidence 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. CAGE Code, DUNS, and Tax ID

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

v. 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-18-R-4002

The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase 1 is: 9M68QC-XPBNZR

The Plan Room Key for Phase I is: 78CF37-2AQGB2

*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, https://www.projnet.org/ 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 are allowable for this Small Business set-aside; however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Development

Specialist (BDS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when our BDS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO

CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL OR

BIDS. 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 mailto:staff@rcesupport.com 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 Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence 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.

http://fedbgov.dnb.com/webform http://fedbgov.dnb.com/webform http://www.dnb.com/us/

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 - Performance Confidence; and Technical Factor 3 -

Technical Approach. 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 up to 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 Performance Confidence Equal to Factors 1,3,4 and 5

1&2 3 Technical Approach 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 when 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 informal 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 informal 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, Performance Confidence, and Technical Approach.

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 moderate.

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, Phase I

Acknowledged Amendment(s)

(SF30’s), Field Office Overhead, Letters of Commitment, and Joint

Venture Teaming Agreement

N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Corporate Experience

Letters of Commitment

Equal to factors 2 and 3

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

Tab D Factor 3 Technical Approach 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, design-build and design-bid-build experience Design-Build construction projects and/or Design-Bid-Build construction projects. 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. Summary of the important components of the project. Also, address how this project is similar to the types of work being procured for this RFP.

(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.

(j) Information that demonstrates a successful, repetitive relationship between the construction firm and the AE firm that will be used for the design-build work.

(k) If the offeror represents a joint venture, state if the example project represents the joint venture or one of the individual firms.

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 Small Business MATOC design-build or design-bid-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-bid-build or design-build construction, as similar to their proposed role on this project.

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. Criteria listed below are not listed in order of importance. No additional weight is given to any of the listed criteria.

a) Design-build projects.

b) Projects that demonstrate a successful, repetitive relationship with the proposed AE firm and any other proposed subcontractors (i.e. electrical, mechanical, and civil, etc.)

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

d) Projects completed or substantially complete within the last 6 years as of the proposal submission date. The project will be considered substantially complete if it is 95% or more complete

e) Projects with a value of $2.0M or greater.

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

MATOC.

g) Projects that demonstrate historic renovation experience.

h) Projects that demonstrate sustainment, renovation and modernization experience.

VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

Submission Requirements

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, the offeror shall provide a Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence 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, Jaclyn Yocum, via email at

Jaclyn.C.Yocum@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) 389-2266.

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1, to ensure the agency has all relevant Performance Confidence 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.

Offerors should organize all Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence

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 Performance Confidence information rests with the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating Performance

Confidence. Performance Confidence information may be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence 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 mailto:rodney.a.morris@usace.army.mil

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The Performance Confidence evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Performance Confidence 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

Performance Confidence, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

In reviewing each Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Performance Confidence Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Performance Confidence effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Performance Confidence effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Performance Confidence effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

For each Performance Confidence effort, the SST will then evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Performance Confidence evaluation will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s Performance Confidence on past contracts; rather, the Performance Confidence 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 Performance Confidence 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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE 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 Performance Confidence 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/Robert Johnson

Federal Building Room 635

601 East 12 Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2824

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to the Contract Specialist, Jaclyn Yocum, at the following email address:

jaclyn.c.yocum@usace.army.mil.

mailto:rodney.a.morris@usace.army.mil.

NAVFAC/USACE PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE 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 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?

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 price(s)?

E VG S M U N

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.

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 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit a Technical Approach 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 project 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 responsibilities 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' Technical Approach and will assign strengths and weaknesses based on how well each offeror's Technical Approach 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. Technical…