B.08.03 SF30 Amendment 0002.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

Roof Repair/ Replacement at Fort Riley, Kansas: The purpose of the amendment is to update the Wage Determination for Riley and Geary counties, add Attachment A Fort Riley Site Map, and update the Bidder Inquiry Key in Section 00 22 Supplementary Instructions.

Riley County Wage Determination now reflects KS20240056 01/19/2024 Mod.1 Geary County Wage Determination now ref lects KS20240049 01/19/2024 Mod.1

Bidder Inquiry Key changed in Section 0022 Supplementary Instructions from W9HKBY-8BMF3 to W9HKBY-8BMF3F

Attachment A - Fort Riley Site Map added to the solicitation.

Proposal due date remains unchanged - 22 February 2024 at 2:00 p.m. CST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 39

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Feb-2024

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 W912DQ24R4009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jan-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Feb-2024

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:

W912DQ24R4009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The below Table of Contents has been added

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Attachment A - Fort Riley

Site Map

06-FEB-2024

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

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

The technical proposal shall address the Offeror’s proposed approach to fully perform the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the RFP.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for the Roofing SATOC at Ft. Riley, KS. W912DQ-24-R-4009.

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.

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.

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

This requirement will be synopsized/solicited, and proposals will be received through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system solicitation Portal. In order to submit a proposal for this requirement on the PIEE Solicitation Portal, contractors will first need to register for the PIEE ‘Proposal Manager’ role.

How to Register:

1. Navigate to https://piee.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 [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]

10. Follow the remaining prompts to submit your registration

To learn more about the PIEE Solicitation Portal and for training/instructions on submitting your quote, please visit the Web Base Training Page below:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

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 proposals shall be submitted in Files as follows:

Submit the proposal in electronic format as indicated.

(1) File 1 (TAB A) Pro Forma requirements

(2) File 2 Technical Proposal (TABs B – C)

TAB B, Factor 1 Performance Confidence TAB C, Factor 2 Management Approach

(3) File 3 (TAB D) Price Proposal

Offerors shall limit the proposal to the following page limits:

Factor 1: Performance Confidence – 3 pages per project, maximum 15 pages Factor 2: Management Approach – 5 Pages

All text must be legible and easily read. The page size of the offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced with a minimum size 10 font. 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. 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. Each file should be in PDF format and be *Optical Character Recognition (OCR) compatible.

*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.

Arrange the proposal as follows:

File 1 (TAB A)

Cover letter - Solicitation number; Name, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror; Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP;

CAGE Codes and Unique Entity ID (UEI) and DUNS number if you have one for the offeror and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1 – Past Performance.

Table of Contents - Each file of the proposal should contain a detailed table of contents. All pages of each factor should be sequentially numbered.

Acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form). And in block 18 of the SF1442.

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

Bonding Capacity; single and aggregate.

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

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 22 11 paragraph 1 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, including letters of commitment from the joint venture firms. See 00 22 11 paragraph 1 above and paragraph 5 below.

Including letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners as identified in section 6.0 below.

File 2 (TAB B – C)

TAB B - Factor 1: Performance Confidence

TAB C - Factor 2: Management Approach

File 3 Price Proposal (TAB D)

TAB D: Factor 4 – PRICE. Provide an original signed Standard Form 1442 “Solicitation, Offer, and Award”; providing a price for all line items in the corresponding bid schedule; and acknowledgment of all amendments to the solicitation. Proposed prices must be entered for all items of the Bid Schedule and the Supplemental Bid Schedule (separate excel document).

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: W912DQ24R4009 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: W9HKBY-8BMF3F The Plan Room Key is: FD8R4Y-UGDFZR

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 Bid 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. JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities in File 1 Tab A:

1. A 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, 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).

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 1, TAB A. Offeror may include projects completed by predecessor or affiliate companies, as long as the relationship of the predecessor or affiliate company is clearly documented in the proposal. Offerors must demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will be relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Describe in detail the involvement that will be included in this contract.

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 NGA N2W Remote Inspection Facility 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]

Sincerely, [Authorized Official]

[Legal Name of Offeror]

Date:

[Subcontractor] [Legal Name of Subcontractor] Date: __________

7. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to select for award the single responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation that proposes a price that is fair and reasonable, and that provides the Best Value to the Government. The selection will be based on evaluation of the following evaluation factors: Performance Confidence, Management Approach, and Price.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following evaluation factors: Performance Confidence, Management Approach, and Price. The non-price factors are not of equal importance as shown in Table 1 below.

The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. In the event that discussions are not necessary then we intend to award, without discussions, to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value.

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

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

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor 1: Performance Confidence. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant performance of the prime offeror and team members and assign a past performance evaluation. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality assessment. The Government will evaluate these aspects to establish one performance confidence rating for this factor.

Factor 2: Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the offeror's explanation of its proposed management capabilities for this project. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined management and risk rating for this factor.

Factor 3: Price. The resulting award will be a firm-fixed-price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the firm-fixed-price effort.

The relative weight given to the evaluation factors is described in the table below.

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Table 1. Relative Weight of Evaluation Factors

Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Performance Confidence This factor is more important than Factor 2

Factor 2

Management Approach This factor is less important than Factor 1

Factor 3 Price All non-priced factors when combined are more important than price.

8. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

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

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, and if necessary, and any additional information obtained by the Government 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 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.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the 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.

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 2.

The Offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings for Factor 2.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 3. Technical Risk Rating Method

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

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

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

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

10. DEFINITIONS

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

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

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness is 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 EVALUATED

FILE 2 - TAB B – Factor 1 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. 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. Recency, relevance and quality of performance will be combined to establish one past performance assessment rating for each Offeror.

1.1. RECENCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For projects to demonstrate recent experience of the contractor, the construction must be complete or substantially complete. If a project is not complete the offeror must explain why the project is considered substantially complete. A substantially complete project is defined as a project that is 95% or more complete. If an offeror presents a project that is less the 95% complete the offeror must include an explanation why the project should be considered. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects considered substantially complete within the same date range will also be considered.

1.2 RELEVANCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

These projects must be of relevant scope and complexity to the solicited project. Offerors may identify federal, state, and local government or private contracts that are similar to the government’s requirements. Use the following format to submit project information:

(a) Project Title, Contract Number, and location

(b) Project Contract Type (for example, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity)

(c) Total Dollar Amount

(d) Start and Completion Dates. If the project is not complete indicate percentage of completion and anticipated completion date

(e) Role of Firm (Describe the type of work performed and percentage of work, as applicable)

(f) Brief Description of Project. Identify how the project relates to this solicitation

(g) Customer primary point of contact (name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and email address), the government may contact or interview project references (reference information will not be revealed to other parties)

(h) Submission requirements for factor 1 will not exceed 12 pages. Letters of commitment will not count toward the page limit.

Minimum Criteria: for a project to be relevant and evaluated it must meet the following minimum criteria:

(a) Design Bid Build Construction projects for no more than five (5) Roofing Repair or Replacement projects that are completed within the previous six (6) years and are individually valued at no less than $350,000.

(b) No more than three (3) of the projects will demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience in one of the following roofing systems.

a. Asphalt

b. styrene-butadiene modified bituminous

c. polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

d. thermoplastic-polyolefin

e. copper guttering systems for historic listed facilities

(c) At least one (1) of the projects will demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience in ethylene-propylene-diene-monomer (EPDM) roofing systems where a manufacturer-certification to install roofing systems as described in this solicitation.

(d) At least one (1) of the projects will demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience in architectural and structural metal panel roofing systems to include standing seam metal roofing, as described in this solicitation.

(e) At least two (2) of the projects shall be awarded and completed concurrently and on time.

The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project list), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific submissions above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled "EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS" (Attachment B). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror's proposal and should be in the same format as the form. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Each submitted project will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Relevancy Assessment

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

1.3. QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

For each of the projects submitted, provide a copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report. If CPARS does not exist, please provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment A) to a representative of the owner. The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Performance Confidence. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ 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 (Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). 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, Blake Davis via email at blake.a.davis@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may use previously completed PPQs and do not need to have one completed specifically for this project but must include it as a hardcopy.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance for any project. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/ subsidiary/ affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The information obtained from these sources will be evaluated supplementary to the past performance questionnaires. In reference to the contracts pulled from these sources, the relevancy of the projects, completion dates, ratings and comments in the individual categories and overall ratings will be considered in making the overall confidence assessment.

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.

1.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of recency and relevancy of all the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised);

and trend data will be considered. Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating; however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. 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 5152.236-9011. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR

15. CPARS that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

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.

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

NOTE: Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably regarding past performance, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this best value tradeoff.

FILE 2 - TAB C - Factor 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs to facilitate evaluation. Submit this information in the form of narratives. Narrative is limited to five (5) pages, anything after five (5) pages will not be evaluated.

2.2. QUALITY MANAGEMENT

1. Describe how they intend to manage quality through the construction of multiple projects at the same time at multiple locations. Narratives shall discuss corporate quality programs and how staffing and processes ensure safety throughout construction.

2. Discuss quality management methods and the quality control system proposed throughout the team’s construction process.

3. Discuss how you will implement the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program.

4. Describe the items the offeror will self-perform vs. subcontract

2.3 SAFETY

1. The offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their safety program for each task order. Narratives shall discuss corporate safety programs and how staffing and processes throughout construction. safety thought construction.

2. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to EM 385-1-1.

3. Provide EMR rates DART rates for the past eight (8) years, if available.

2.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Management Approach evaluation: the Government will evaluate proposals to ensure that they address all aspects of this factor.

1. Describe how they intend to manage quality through the construction of multiple projects at the same time at multiple locations. Narratives shall discuss corporate quality programs and how staffing and processes ensure safety throughout construction.

2. Discuss quality management methods and the quality control system proposed throughout the team’s construction process.

3. Discuss how you will implement the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program.

4. Describe the items the offeror will self-perform vs. subcontract.

Safety

1. The offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their safety program for each task order. Narratives shall discuss corporate safety programs and how staffing and processes throughout construction. safety thought construction.

2. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to EM 385-1-1.

3. Provide EMR rates DART rates for the past eight (8) years, if available.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission based on how it conveys the contractor’s understanding and capability to manage quality and safety on warded task orders based on the above criteria. Weaknesses will also be given to those that omit key components or processes from the above criteria and/or if there is not a clear understanding of what is being proposed.

File 3 - TAB D – FACTOR 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. The evaluated price is the sum of CLINs, including all options, evaluated at the time of award.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) price analysis will be used to verify that the overall price offered is fair and reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices, comparison of proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimates, analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at FAR 2.101) provided by the offeror, and cost realism analysis may be used to perform price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

The Government will maintain confidentiality and proprietary.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Attachment A

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI 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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(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.

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: NGA N2W Remote Inspection Facility

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 Engineer District, Kansas City ATTN: CECT-NWK/ Stephanie Kretzer Federal Building Room 635 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 640106-2824

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to stephanie.r.kretzer@usace.army.mil We request your questionnaire be provided by the proposal due date.

If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact Stephanie Kretzer, USACE Contract Specialist, at (816) 389-2355.

Sincerely, (Offeror’s signature)

Attachments:

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

2. Past Performance Questionnaire

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ___________________________________ Client Information (Name): _________________________________________

PLEASE CIRCLE…