Draft_Solicitation_W912DQ25RA004_Draft.pdf

(See ).

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

9. FOR

INFORMATION CALL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

1. SOLICITATION NUMBER

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER

CODE

6. PROJECT NUMBER

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

4. CONTRACT NUMBER

7. ISSUED BY

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS (Title, identifying number, date)

11. The contractor shall begin performance within

12a. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES", indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12b.)

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

a. Sealed offers in original and

b. An offer guarantee

c. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

d. Offers providing less than

STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 12/2022)

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(d) calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

is, is not required.

local time containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

(date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers will be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by (hour) award, YES NO notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory negotiable.

calendar days and complete it within calendar days after receiving

a. NAME b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

12b. CALENDAR DAYS

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

INVITATION FOR BID

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3. DATE ISSUED PAGE OF PAGES

W912DQ25RA004 1 53

403873

W071 ENDIST KANSAS CITY

CONTRACTING DIV CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 601 E 12TH ST

KANSAS CITY, MO 64106-2896

UNITED STATES

DALE COLEMAN, EMAIL: DALE.E.COLEMAN@USACE.ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE:

(816) 389-3500

W912DQ

DALE COLEMAN (816) 389-3500

PROJECT TITLE: CONSTRUCT FLW AIT BARRACKS PHASE 2

PROJECT LOCATION: FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE AWARD OF A SINGLE FIRM-FIXED-PRICE (FFP) DESIGN BID-BUILD CONTRACT.

THE PROJECT IS FULL AND OPEN (UNRESTRICTED) FOR BOTH LARGE AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

THE NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION (NAICS) CODE IS 236220 - COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

THIS AWARD IS SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (PLA) WILL BE REQUIRED AT SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL.

THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROJECT IS BETWEEN $100,000,000.00 AND $250,000,000.00.

THE SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD IS $45,000,000.00.

10 1095

FAR 52.211-10

11:00 AM

05 DEC 2025

DRAFT

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

17. The offeror agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified below in strict accordance with the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted calendar days after the date offers are due. (Insert any number equal to or greater than the minimum requirement by the Government in writing within stated in Item 13d. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13d.)

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

AMOUNTS

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT

NUMBER

DATE

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR (Include ZIP Code)

CODE FACILITY CODE

15. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (Include only if different than Item 14.)

20a. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT

26. ADMINISTERED BY

30a. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN (Type or print)

31c. DATE

STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 12/2022) BACK

31b. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

31a. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on this solicitation is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award consummates the contract, which consists of (a) the Government solicitation and your offer, and (b) this contract award. No further contractual document is necessary.

30b. SIGNATURE 30c. DATE

28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return and deliver all items or perform all work requirements identified on this form and any continuation sheets for the consideration stated in this contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be governed by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certifications, and specifications incorporated by reference in or attached to this contract.

copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

ITEM

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES

CODE AT

27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

10 U.S.C. 3204(a) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 3304(a) ( )

20b. SIGNATURE 20c. OFFER DATE

Review specification 01 30 00, paragraph 1.29 Field Office Overhead (FOOH). Please select a choice and return with your proposal.

ATTACHMENT 1- Submission Requirements – Basis of Award (Solicitation Section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers)

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

This Request for Proposal (RFP) represents a competitive acquisition seeking proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for the award of firm-fixed-price construction contract.

An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this solicitation. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal. The technical proposal shall conform to the submission requirements stated in Section 3, below. Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by the RFP.

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 committed to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The executed Contractor Team Arrangement must be included with the offering prime contractor’s proposal and will be enforced upon any resulting contract award from this solicitation.

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. The SBA approved joint venture shall be in place prior to any resulting contract award from this solicitation.

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS (ELECTRONIC

PROPOSALS)

Proposals will be received through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system’s 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:

a. Navigate to https://piee.eb.mil/

b. Select Register [top right]

c. Select Vendor

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

e. Create Security Questions [next]

f. Complete your User Profile Information [next]

g. Complete your Supervisor or Approving Official Information [next]

h. 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]

i. Provide a justification for your registration [next]

j. 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

Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to be evaluated and considered for award of a contract the offeror must submit a complete proposal that conforms to the submission requirements contained in this solicitation. Failure to submit a complete, conforming proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected. All proposals shall be organized, named, and submitted in electronic files per the instructions below:

a. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 10-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

b. Proposals shall be organized, labeled, and submitted in the volumes and tabs as indicated in the table below. Each volume has a table of contents with sequentially numbered pages.

https://piee.eb.mil/

PROPOSAL

VOLUME

TITLE PROPOSAL

TAB

MAXIMUM

PAGES

I Pro Forma Requirements

Tab A, Pro Forma Requirements No page limit

II Performance Confidence

Tab B, Factor 1: Performance

Confidence

3 pages per submitted project, maximum of 15 pages

III Technical Proposal

Tab C, Factor 2: Management

Approach 5 Pages

Tab D, Factor 3: Technical

Approach

5 pages (excluding schedule)

IV Small Business Participation

Tab E, Factor 4: Small Business

Participation Plan No page limit

V Price Tab F, Factor 5: Price No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

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 formatted to be printable on an 11 by 17-inch page. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper.

Each volume 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.

Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

4. Pro Forma Requirements (Volume I, 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) for the offeror and all teaming partners who participated in Factor 1 – Performance Confidence.

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 paragraph 6 below.

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 paragraph 7 below.

a. SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award document): Signature and 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

b. Completed Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications, disclosures, and

Printed Entity Records from System for Award Management (SAM).

c. Bid Guarantee. See FAR 52.228-1.

d. Proof of Bonding Capability: Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Dept. of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the offeror is able to obtain performance and payment bonds in at least the amount of the offered price appearing on the bid schedule.

e. Project Labor Agreement documentation per FAR 52.222-33

f. If applicable, offerors submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the contractor team arrangement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror and the narrative.

g. 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 paragraph 1 above and paragraph 5 below. Include any team arrangement documentation for subcontractor or teaming partners as identified in paragraph 7 below.

Letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners should be similar to the example below.

SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT to

USE SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING

PARTNER [COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

TO: Contracting Officer, Kansas City District, United States Army Corps of Engineers

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for [insert project name]

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

[Insert list of tasks to be performed by the subcontractor/teaming partner]

Sincerely, [Authorized Official] [Legal Name of Offeror] Date:

[Subcontractor/Teaming Partner] [Legal Name of Firm] Date:

5. INQUIRES/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: W912DQ25RA004 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: P9P92Z-WB37UC The Plans Room Key is: 3D4G3X-2B9F4R

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

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

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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:

a. 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.

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

c. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

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

e. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

f. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret

Question.

g. 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 fifteen 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.

6. JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities Volume I, Tab A:

a. A certified copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

i. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

v. 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.

vi. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

vii. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

viii. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

If one of the Joint Venture parties possesses experience and/or past performance as a Federal Government contractor or as a Corps of Engineers contractor, that experience and/or past experience will be included as the experience and/or past experience of the Joint Venture.

7. SUBCONTRACTOR TEAMING PARTNERS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner, the offeror must submit the Contractor Team Arrangement documentation, with level of commitment, described under General Proposal Information, signed both by the subcontractor/team partner and the offeror.

The Contractor Team Arrangement 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). I

In order for the government to consider a subcontractor or teaming partner’s experience during evaluation, the subcontractor’s project experience described in the proposal must match that subcontractor’s roles and responsibilities described in the Contractor Team Arrangement. Any project experience not matching the portion of work to be performed by the subcontractor in the teaming agreement will not be evaluated. Joint Venture parties’ experience and/or past performance will be evaluated as the experience and/or past performance of the Joint Venture.

Credit is allowed for subcontractor/teaming partners only. It is not allowed for individual key personnel members. Include the subcontractor/teaming partner signed, fully executed Contractor Team Arrangement in Volume I, 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.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a firm-fixed price construction contract to a single responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation; proposes a price that is fair and reasonable; and provides the “Best Value” to the Government based on a tradeoff process. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and any minority opinions presented to the Source

Selection Authority (SSA). While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

The Government intends to conduct discussions per FAR 52.215-1 Alt I. In the event that discussions are not necessary, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

The Non-Price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price, and the Government may make award to other than the lowest-price offeror, if doing so would result in the best value to the Government. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages;

however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted. Where the technical merits of competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factors and the Small Business Participation factor. Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a) which will be requested from the apparent awardee. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE WEIGHTING

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

Table 1 – Relative Weight of Evaluation Factors Factor Description Relative Importance

1 Performance Confidence This factor is more important than Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4.

2 Management Approach This factor is less important than Factor 1 and more important than Factor 3, Factor 4.

3 Technical Approach This factor is less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2 but more important than Factor 4.

4 Small Business Participation This factor is less important than Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3.

5 Price All non-priced factors when combined significantly outweigh price.

NOTE: Each factor is individually evaluated based on the information contained in the proposal’s submitted response for that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with formal source selection procedures outlined in FAR Part 15; DFARS Part 15; DFARS PGI 215.3; Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, and AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all 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 is based on the content of the proposals, 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. Each team member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided for the assigned factor(s). Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for the assigned evaluation factor(s). The SSEB members will provide and document all significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each assigned factor.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) who will review the SSEB’s evaluations and documentation. The SSAC will provide their evaluation and recommendations to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the SSA.

The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications, communications, or discussions, and approve any competitive range determinations.

The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which offeror represents the best overall value to the Government and is selected for award.

2. TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS

The Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant 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 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 3.

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

Table 2 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Definition

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates 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 unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

Table 3 – Technical Risk Rating Method Rating Definition

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.

3. DEFINITIONS

Rating: The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated findings (strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties).

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

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

4. DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Alt I, discussions are planned to be held with each offeror in the competitive range. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions. If discussions are deemed to be not necessary, the government reserves the right to award a contract without conducting discussions.

5. 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, and DFARS 215.506 Post-award Debriefing of Offers.

E. FACTOR EVALUATIONS

1. FACTOR 1: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE (Volume II, Tab B)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Performance Evaluation / CPARS

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) (Appendix C) to a representative of the owner.

b. Project Experience

The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled "EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS" (Appendix C). 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.

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) projects and a maximum of five (5) projects completed or substantially completed demonstrating the Offeror’s recent and relevant experience. The Government may accept performance by the prime construction entity or its key subcontractor/teaming partner.

At least three (3) projects must demonstrate past performance of the Offeror as the Prime contractor and valued at a minimum of $90,000,000

A project is defined as a work performed at one site or at a single installation. An Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC), such as a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) or Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) 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 a project for the purposes of this evaluation. A project may contain multiple Task Orders if they are from the same site or installation, and they are for the same construction effort such as multiple phases of one project. The projects should describe the specific work, identify whether it was performed as the prime or subcontractor. Each project shall include the contract number, task order number, and owner's contact information. Project descriptions shall clearly state scope and extent of work performed by the team member, percent or portion of work completed, dates when work was performed, and date of contract completion. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe these items will not be considered.

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

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.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify, detail and demonstrate the recency, relevancy and quality of the submitted projects to the solicitation criteria elements. The evaluation committee WILL NOT make assumptions. If the portfolio of projects does not address the above minimum requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A summary chart that shows which relevant features have been met for each project will not be considered sufficient for demonstration of relevancy.

RECENCY

Recent means completed within the past six (6) years as of the date the solicitation was issued. Projects considered substantially complete within the same date range may also be considered.

If an offeror presents a project that is substantially complete, the proposal must include an explanation of why that project should be considered. "Substantially Complete" is defined as the stage at which the project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents so that the end user can occupy it and use it for its intended purpose.

With respect to recency, more recent project performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less recent project performance.

RELEVANCY

Relevant projects are projects of the same, or close to the same scope, size, magnitude, and complexity to the solicited project. The Projects submitted shall demonstrate (either individually or in combination thereof) all of the following project types:

a. Projects valued at time of award at $90,000,000 or greater (present day value utilizing a yearly 3.5% escalation factor) for each project.

b. Demonstrated experience involving new construction of multi-story (3 or more stories), multi-unit dwelling buildings (e.g. barracks, hotels, dormitories, or apartments).

c. Demonstrated experience working with DoD criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS).

d. Demonstrated compliance with USACE Contractor Construction Quality Management.

e. Demonstrated experience working in a constricted setting without disrupting nearby housing developments.

The more relevant a submitted project is to this requirement the more consideration given for this factor. More relevant project performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than project performance of less relevancy.

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

Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

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) (Appendix C, Enclosure 1) 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 (Appendix C, Enclosure 1), 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, Dale Coleman, via email at dale.e.coleman@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 mailto:dale.e.coleman@usace.army.mil must include it in its entirety. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), the Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.

In addition to the above, the Government will query the CPARS database and 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) 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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include all recent and relevant CPARS and any other past performance information deemed recent and 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’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the submitted example projects.

Examples of other sources 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.

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 Performance Confidence Factor as illustrated in Table 5, below.

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, JV, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated unless the proposal contains the Contractor Team Arrangement documentation described in Section II, Subsection A, Paragraph 7, SUBCONTRACTOR TEAMING PARTNERS, above, and a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant for performance of this contract. The subcontractor’s project experience described in the proposal must match that subcontractor’s roles and responsibilities described in the teaming agreement or JV. Any project experience not matching the portion of work to be performed by the subcontractor in the teaming agreement will not be evaluated. The Government will consider all submitted information including the explanation in deciding the relevance and weight as it relates to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors may not be given as much weight as information about a prime contractor. 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 Neutral confidence will be assigned.

At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any 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, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror. CPARS that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

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.

2. FACTOR 2 MANAGEMENT APPROACH (Volume III, Tab C)

a. Management Approach

This submission narrative will address the Offeror’s proposed management approach to successfully execute the contract safely and without schedule, quality, or cost issues.

This includes the overall project administration and staffing; quality control and quality management; scheduling and schedule management; safety and safety management;

commissioning; security compliance and security management for employees, vehicles, equipment, and material.

Identify all proposed key positions to include:

1. Position Description

2. Roles and Responsibilities

3. Employee of prime contractor, JV partner, subcontractor partner, or third party

4. Full-time or part-time position

Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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.

Neutral Confidence

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 facto of past performance.

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.

5. Dual-hatted position and if so, the assigned dual roles and responsibilities

6. Required Qualifications for the position

7. All specialized training requirements for the position

8. Experience requirements for the position

9. Other qualifications

At a minimum include the contractually required key personnel: Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officers, Quality Control Managers, Scheduler,.

Refer to the following Specification Sections for contractually required personnel and their minimum requirements:

01 30 00 – Administrative Requirements for Superintendent requirements;

01 32 01.00 10 - Project Schedule;

01 35 26 – Government Safety Requirements;

01 45 00.00 - Quality Control;

Include a general description and percentage of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor. If the offeror is a JV, identify the percentage of self-performance and type of self-performance of each JV partner.

If offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), LLC, Partnership, Teaming Arrangement, or Parent company/subsidiary/affiliate, as identified in the offeror’s proposal, the Offeror shall identify the roles and responsibilities…