B.08.03 Amendment 0001_SB MATOC.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

This amemendment is to correct the definition in Phase 1 Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings for Very Relevant and def ine the percentage of substantially complete under Technical Factors To Be Evaluated in Phase 1, Factor 1-1 Corporate Experience, (g) Costruction Start and Completion dates.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Apr-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912DQ22R4007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Apr-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Apr-2022

CODE

USACE, KANSAS CITY CT

FEDERAL BLDG CT-M 601 E 12TH STREET

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:

W912DQ22R4007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. Purpose of the Amendment: To correct the definition in Phase 1 Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings for Very Relevant; to add the definition of substantially complete ( numbered as 6) and project value (numbered as 7) under Technical Factors To Be Evaluated in Phase 1, Factor 1-1 Corporate Experience, Evaluation Criteria.

2. The date and time for submission of proposals remains the same, 6 May 2022 at 1:00 P.M. local Kansas City time.

3. Offerors are required to acknowledge this amendment. Failure to acknowledge all amendments may cause rejection of the proposal.

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in force.

Deletions are red w/strikethrough. Additions are in green.

Phase 1 Table 3. 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.

Technical Factors To Be Evaluated in Phase 1, Factor 1-1 Corporate Experience, Evaluation Criteria.

1. Design-build projects.

2. Projects in which the prime contractor’s role is similar to the role proposed for this MATOC.

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

4. Projects that demonstrate historic renovation experience.

5. Projects that demonstrate sustainment, renovation, and modernization experience.

6. 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.

7. Projects with a value of $6.0M or greater.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS

APPENDIX C

RFP SECTION 00 22 16: PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. OVERVIEW

a. This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for the 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 contracts resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications and intends to invite a target of seven 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.

b. Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors.

Any legally organized offeror may submit a proposal.

c. Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

d. Any Offeror submitting an offer in the name of a joint venture, shall include a fully executed copy of the joint venture agreement with the offer. Joint venture agreements which require SBA approval may be submitted absent the requisite SBA Servicing Agency approving authorities’ signature; however, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

e. In Phase 1 of the two-phase selection procedure, Offerors will submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposals and intends to invite a target of seven most highly rated Phase 1 offerors to compete for the MATOC.

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

PHASE 1 DOES NOT REQUEST OR REQUIRE A PRICING SUBMISSION

g. At the beginning of 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. In addition, Corporate Experience and Past Performance from Phase 1 will be brought forward to Phase 2. The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals.

In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a target of five contracts to the offerors whose proposals offer the Best Value – Trade-off proposal to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2.

h. 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. 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

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH

PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT (PIEE) at https://wawf.eb.mil. Web Based Training for registration and proposal submission is available as a separate portal on the main page of the site or by visiting https://wawftraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml.

Although you can search, review, and open non-restricted solicitations without logging in, you must establish a personal account in the system and register for the Proposal Manager role before you are able to submit a proposal. This account is activated by your Contractor Administrator (CAM).

Instructions for registering are as follows:

1. Navigate to https://wawf.eb.mil/

2. Select Register [top right]

3. Select Vendor

4. Create a User ID and Password and follow the prompts [next]

5. Create Security Questions [next]

6. Complete your User Profile Information [next]

7. Complete your Supervisor or Approving Official Information. This official will act as the CAM who will ultimately approve your account. If you are unsure of who this is please go to https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/lookup/gamLookup.xhtml to locate the CAM for your company for assistance. [next]

8. Complete Roles - Step 1. Select SOL-Solicitation, Step 2. Select Proposal Manager, Step 3. Click Add Roles, Step 4. Fill in your Location Code (CAGE Code) [next]

9. Provide a justification for your registration [next]

VERIFY ACCOUNT STATUS/CAPABILITIES.

Once the Proposal Manager account has been approved, verify that your account is showing active under the profile page. Also, once you click on the specified solicitation, verify that the “Offer” tab is visible next to the “Solicitation” tab at the top of the page. The proposal will be submitted through the “Offer” tab. It is imperative that this is verified early in the process in order to mitigate any potential problems with the submission of your proposal.

For questions concerning your account, please contact the WAWF Helpdesk at 866-618- 5988. If you are still experiencing problems after the above referenced efforts have been made, please contact the Contract Specialist / Contracting Officer immediately.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

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 offeror shall submit electronic files as delineated below all as pdf files. Facsimile, hand carried and USPS/UPS/FedEx delivery is not authorized.

Phase 1

File Electronic File Name Electronic Submission Requirements Format

PHASE 1

Cover Letter 00CovLtr See below. pdf

Factor 1-1:

Corporate Experience

01CorpExp See below. pdf

Factor 1-2:

Performance Confidence

02PerfConf See below. pdf

Factor 1-3:

Management Approach

03MgmtApp See below pdf

Technical Proposal:

Cover Letter, Completed SF 1442, Surety Letter, bank letter, and Joint Venture Teaming Agreement FACTOR 1-1 Corporate Experience FACTOR 1-2 Performance Confidence FACTOR 1-3 Management Approach

Offerors shall limit Phase 1 Proposal, to the following page limits.

Factor 1-1: Corporate Experience, to a maximum of 15 pages Factor 1-2: Performance Confidence. No page limit for this factor.

Factor 1-3: Management Approach, to a maximum of 5 pages.

Phase 1 – Pro Forma requirements 00Covltr File, Cover letter

Part 1, Cover letter containing the following:

a. Solicitation number;

b. Name, address, email, and telephone number of the Offeror;

c. Names, titles, emails, telephone and fax numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

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

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

f. CAGE Codes for the offeror and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1-1 – Corporate Experience projects.

Part 2:

a. Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror, include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14.

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

c. Bond Surety Letter. Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the offeror is able to provide a bid bond for Phase 2 and obtain performance and payment bonds should they win the contract. FAILURE TO

PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN INELIGIBILITY FOR

AWARD.

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

e. The completed section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications, Printed Entity Record from System for Award Management (SAM).

f. If applicable, offerors submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the teaming arrangement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror and the narrative described in 00 21 16 paragraph 1.d above. If applicable, Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal. See 00 21 16 paragraph 1.d above and paragraph 5 below.

Phase 1 – 01CorpExp File, Technical Proposal

Factor 1-1: Corporate Experience

Including letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners as identified in section 6 below.

Phase 1 – 02PerfConf File

Factor 1-2: Performance Confidence

Information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, major subcontractor, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant for performance of this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains some evidence that this subcontractor is committed to perform the work. See UAI 5152.236-9001 Design-Build Contracts.

Phase 1 – 03MgmtApp File

Factor 1-3: Management Approach

Submit information in the form of narratives.

FILE FORMAT:

Proposals shall be in a narrative format. The submission shall be typed, neatly organized, clearly indexed, logically assembled, and written in the English language. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be provided. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. A standard, 11-point minimum font size applies.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. Headers and footers may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Clearly identify the “original” technical proposal on the cover. Any information that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) shall be indicated as follows:

cover shall be marked “Revision Dated: MM/DD/YYYY,” pages shall be of a different color, all text additions/deletions shall be clearly indicated, and sections changed shall be marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be marked “Revision Dated: MM/DD/YYYY.”

NOTE: 11X17 formatted pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations ONLY.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (Nov 2021)” subparagraph (e). Electronic Files. Electronic files shall be provided in a pdf format and shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Self-extracting exe files will not be accepted.

All documents must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation, such as company brochures or other information, will not be considered part of the proposal or used to determine whether the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Additional Administrative Requirements: These documents are required in order for the Government to conduct its initial compliance review and to assist in the responsibility determination. These documents will be referenced in the initial check by the Government on the basis of the solicitation requirements and in the final review prior to award. This review is to ensure that all required forms are complete, in compliance with all administration and submission criteria.

4. 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: W912DQ22R4007 The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase 1 is: 9VZ84F-BP32VK The Plan Room Key for Phase I is: T6H5FE-Z4QTXH

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

2. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

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

5. 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.

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

7. 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- 833-389-1097. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

5. 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, keeping the books and records, and paying 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.

6. SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNERS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the corporate experience or past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner, including second and third tier subcontractors/teaming partners, 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 letter of commitment will be in a form substantially the same as the Sample Letter of Commitment in this solicitation. 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).

Credit is allowed for subcontractor/teaming partners only. It is not allowed for individual key personnel members.

Include the subcontractor/teaming partner letters of commitment in file 01CorpExp.

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 [insert project name]

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

[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. BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FARS 36.301. In Phase 1, the Government intends to select a target of seven most highly rated offerors to compete in Phase 2. If there is no meaningful distinction or breaking point at seven offerors, the government reserves the right to invite fewer or greater than seven offerors to submit Phase 2 Offers. The selection will be based on the evaluation of the below technical factors.

Factor 1-1, Corporate Experience Factor 1-2, Performance Confidence Factor 1-3, Management Approach

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.

The Government will select a target of seven 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 Phase 1 table below.

Phase 1 Table 1. Relative Weight of Evaluation Factors

8. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, revised proposals, if necessary, and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

Members of the SSEB will independently evaluate the information provided in the Phase 1 proposal. Once these individual evaluations are completed, the SSEB will deliberate and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the Source Selection Authority. The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications, communications or discussions. The ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the SSA. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation. A target of seven proposals will be included in the Phase 2 process.

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Phase 1 & 2 Factor 1-1 Corporate Experience This factor is more important than Factor 1-2 and 1-3.

Phase 1 & 2

Factor 1-2

Performance Confidence

This factor is less important than Factor 1-1 and more important than 1-3

Phase 1 & 2 Factor 1-3 Management Approach This factor is less important than Factor 1-1 and 1-2.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

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. 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 2A and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B.

Phase 1 Table 2A. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Table 2B. 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.

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.

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

10. 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 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.

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. 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. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE ELVALUATED IN PHASE 1

PHASE 1 – FILE, CORPEXP - FACTOR 1-1 – 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. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated. The projects submitted shall be limited to no more than 3 pages each and any project information beyond the 15 page limit will not be evaluated.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered as individual projects for the purposes of this evaluation. Only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects. A phased project for a single customer with multiple inter-dependent facilities on a single site may be considered a project for the purposes of this evaluation but must be clearly identified as such in the project narrative. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe the offeror’s or team member’s experience, the scope of the project, or the periods of project performance will not be considered.

Use the following format to provide project information:

(a) Project Title

(b) Location

(c) Contract Number

(d) Project Delivery Method:

Indicate Design/Build; Design/Bid/Build; CM@Risk; Integrated Design; Design Only; etc.

(e) Role of Offeror:

Indicate type and percentage of work performed by the offeror or offeror’s team member.

(f) Total Dollar Amount;

Indicate if for design only, construction only or both design and construction.

(g) Construction Start and Completion Dates.

Project construction must be identified as complete or substantially complete. If an Offeror presents a project that is substantially complete, the proposal must include the percentage complete and an explanation of why that project should be considered.

(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) Procuring Activity Point of Contact: Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address. The Government may contact and interview project reference. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

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

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

(a) Design-Build or Design Bid Build construction project with a value of $6.0 M or greater, or a Design only project with estimated construction cost of $6.0 M or greater.

(b) Completed within the last 8 years as of the proposal submission date, except that 1 project may be substantially complete at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror presents a project which is substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation why that project should be considered substantially complete.

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant corporate experience of the prime contractor and team members and will assign one combined technical and risk rating for this factor.

The Government will evaluate the extent of experience for strengths and weaknesses in the following areas: (criteria below are not listed in order of importance. The Government desires proposals that offer the best combination of experience considering all criteria):

1. Design-build projects.

2. Projects in which the prime contractor’s role is similar to the role proposed for this MATOC.

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

4. Projects that demonstrate historic renovation experience.

5. Projects that demonstrate sustainment, renovation, and modernization experience.

6. Projects completed or substantially complete within the last 6 years as of the proposal submission date.

The project will be cosidered substantially complete if it is 95% or more complete.

7. Projects with a value of $6.0M or greater.

PHASE 1 – FILE, PERFCONF – FACTOR 1-2 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1-1, provide a final CCASS/CPARS evaluation. If a CCASS/CPARS evaluation was not completed, provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to a representative of the owner that can provide the owner’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the owner. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact.

Organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 1-1 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-5, so that reviewers can match the owner’s opinion with the corresponding Factor 1-1 Project. There is no page limit for this factor. If an offeror has previously received a PPQ for a relevant project, the offeror can submit that document. A new PPQ is not required.

Submit completed CCASS/CPARS and/or PPQs with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with owners to ensure timely submittal of PPQs. At the owner’s discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ines Necker, via email at ines.necker@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. If you have questions regarding the PPQs, or require assistance, please contact Ines Necker at (816) 389-2266.

Submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews even if they are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e. Contractor’s copy of CPARS evaluations, for each of the projects submitted under Factor 1-1, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information.

Provide the DUNS number(s) and CAGE code(s) for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, e.g. key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners, whose experience is included on Factor 1-1. 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. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror will also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, i.e. key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners.

The Contract Number and Project Name should be placed in the top left-hand corner of each page of the Past Performance Data. There is no page limit for this factor.

The Government may contact and interview the owner’s representative identified on the Past Performance questionnaires and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative if the owner’s representative is not available. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

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, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases;

interviews with Owners, 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.

Evaluation Criteria

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received.

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. 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 SSEB will first evaluate recency. More recent is better.

Projects completed within the past 8 years are 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 1-1Factor Corporate Experience. Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 3:

Phase 1 Table 3. 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 past performance effort by the offeror, the SSEB will 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 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 4 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 4. 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.

Phase 1 Table 4. 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.

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

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Sample of cover letter to be sent by the offeror to its references

Name and Address of Reference: Date

Dear _____:

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

Your firm has been listed as a reference for the work we performed for you on the following project: (INSERT Project name and contract number)

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.

Furthermore, a questionnaire has also been sent to ( ) of your organization. Only one response from each company 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. It is preferred that you return your questionnaire to our office; however you may also send your completed questionnaire directly to USACE at the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Ines Necker Federal Building Room 635 601 East 12 Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2824

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to the Contract Specialist, Ines Necker at email address ines.necker@usace.army.mil. We request your questionnaire be provided by the proposal deadline, see date in block 13.A. on SF 1442.

If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact Ines Necker, USACE Contract Specialist, at (816) 389-3320.

Sincerely, (Offeror’s signature)

Attachments:

1. Instructions to the Reference for completing the Past Performance Questionnaire

2. Past Performance Questionnaire

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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, or other)

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: CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE

OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS

FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was highly effective.

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

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor…