W912DR-12-R-0007 - DRAFT Solicitation.pdf

The High Performance Computing Center (HPCC2) Project, Fort Meade, MD. Project consists of the design and construction of a high performance computing center and supporting infrastructure.

This solicitation is Subject to the Availability of Funds.

This is an unrestricted acquisition utilizing a tw o-phase best value method.

Phase 1: Qualif ications of Offerors (Bond Surety Letter due w ith Phase 1) Phase 2: Request for Proposal (Bid Bond due w ith Phase 2)

NAICS: 236220

Size Standard: $33.5M

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be directed in w riting to Carlen Capenos at carlen.capenos@usace.army.mil.

CARLEN CAPENOS 410-854-0739

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

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

28-Mar-2012

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________820 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________8 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________27 Apr 2012 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

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

D. Offers providing less than _______150 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE, BALTIMORE

10 S. HOWARD STREET

BALTIMORE MD 21201

W912DR

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

11:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FIELD OFFICE

300 SENTINEL DRIVE

SUITE 400

ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION MD 20701

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

410-962-2001FAX:TEL: 410-962-7646 TEL: 410-854-0740 FAX:

W912DR-12-R-0007 69

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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 NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912DR-12-R-0007

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

PRICING REQUIREMENT FOR PHASE

PRICING REQUIREMENTS

No pricing is required in Phase 1. Pricing will be required with the Phase 2 submission.

This is an incrementally funded project with increments from award through fiscal year 2015. The actual increments will be provided in Phase 2.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Dollars, U.S.

High Performance Computing Center 2

FFP

Bid schedule will be incorporated in Phase 2.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 820 dys. ADC 1 REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FIELD

OFFICE

MIMI BISTANY

300 SENTINEL DRIVE

SUITE 400

ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION MD 20701

410-854-0736 FOB: Destination

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The project consists of the design and construction of a concurrently maintainable, 60 MW technical high performance computing center, located at Ft. Meade, Maryland. Basic ancillary supporting design and construction services include, but are not limited to: excavation and grading, roadways, providing basic utility infrastructure, electrical service (primary power and temporary construction power), water, sewer, and communications infrastructure to be extended from designated demarcation points. The facility itself will consist of approximately 70K SF mission critical equipment space with 36 inch raised access flooring and additional relative technical support and administrative space. The 60 MW of technical load will be split into 40 MW and 20 MW components.

The facility will feature several energy and water saving strategies including 78F air temperatures in the equipment space, entering chilled water temperature of 55F and returning chilled water temperature of 67 F. The facility shall be accredited LEED Silver under the most current rating scheme available. Ancillary supporting facilities include, but are not limited to: interim visitor control center, perimeter site security measures with a 300 foot setback from a K-12 fence and AT/FP low level of protection, fuel storage, 20 minutes of thermal water storage, 24 hours of process water storage, 30,000 ton chiller plant, fire suppression systems including FM-200, limited electrical generator and UPS back up capacity, SCADA, EMCS and a new 160 MVA primary utility sub-station. The design and construction schedule will be very aggressive in order to support an equally aggressive mission deployment schedule.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS – PHASE 1

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the Design and Construction of the High Performance Computing Center 2 (HPCC2) located on Fort Meade, MD. The resultant contract will be a single Firm-Fixed Priced contract.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection Plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two Phase Design-Build Process. In Phase 1 of the 2 Phase Design-Build selection procedure, interested Offerors submit performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.4 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select up to three of the highest rated Offerors to participate in Phase 2.

1.5 In Phase 2 of this process, the Government will evaluate technical solutions, price and small business factors.

1.6 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Procuring Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase Two proposal. Those Offerors selected for Phase Two will be provided the technical requirements package for the project.

1.7 Offers that are not selected to participate in Phase 2 will be notified and may request a pre-award debrief.

1.8 Use of Contractors in the Evaluation of Proposals and other aspects of this procurement. Be advised that the following companies may take on a limited role in the evaluation of portions of Offerors proposals: Black & Veatch, Parsons and MOCA.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A design firm or construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association.

Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 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. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

2.3 If applicable, 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.

2.4 Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, 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 to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about subcontractors may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains evidence that the subcontractor is committed to perform the work. If information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given weight during the evaluation, the expectation is that this subcontractor will perform this work.

Before utilizing another subcontractor for this work, the Government must consent.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each binder of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. The complete table of contents shall be included in each binder. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Printed Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper printed in no less than a 10 point font. For organization charts or schedules, a folded 11” x 17” format may be used.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit the following:

Binder 1: an original and one copy Binder 2: an original and one copy Binder 3: an original and ten copies

3.6 Proposals shall be marked:

Date of Closing: _________________

Time of Closing: 11 a.m.

Solicitation RFP: W912DR-12-R-0007

3.7 Phase 1 proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

Binder 1: Solicitation Information

TAB A: Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. 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.

TAB B: Consent Forms from Black & Veatch, Parsons and MOCA.

Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

(a) Offerors are invited to review FAR 9.505 regarding organizational conflicts of interest;

(b) Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as technical advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board in the source selection process. In addition some of these employees of the firms identified below may serve have served in the conceptual development of this project, the development of the RFP and may have been involved in the value engineering process of this project.

(c) These individuals will be authorized to access only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms and their subcontractors that worked on this project are expressly prohibited from competing on this acquisition and from rating proposals or recommending the selected source:

Black & Veatch, MOCA and Parsons.

(d) In accomplishing their duties, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offeror's proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4 – if access to proprietary information is required, these firms must execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will (1) protect the Offeror's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it is furnished.

The following is a sample format for the consent form:

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement

Whereas we have reviewed FAR 9.505 regarding organizational conflicts of interest. To our knowledge, no organizational conflict of interest exists for this procurement between our company and the Offeror.

Whereas Offerors were advised that employees of our firm may serve as technical advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board in the source selection process or have served in the conceptual development of this project, the development of the RFP and/or have been involved in the value engineering process of this project.

Whereas in accomplishing our duties, our firm, may require access to proprietary information contained in your proposal. Pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, we must execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that we will (1) protect the Offeror's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it is furnished.

Therefore, we, (name of company), agree that we will:

(1) protect ___________________________________’s information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary

And

(2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it is furnished.

Signature of Company Official Date

TAB C: FACTOR 1 Bond Surety Letter

TAB D: Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority.

Sample: CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE AUTHORITY

(This Certificate shall be submitted as part of the proposal or signed contract if the Offeror is a corporation.)

CERTIFICATE

I, _______________________________, certify that I am the ______________________________ of the corporation named as bidder/Offeror therein, that _________________________________, who signed this bid/proposal on behalf of the bidder/Offeror, was then _______________________ of said corporation; that said bid/proposal was duly signed for and in behalf of said corporation by authority of its governing body, and is within the scope of its corporate powers.

By: ___________________________________(Corporate Seal)

(Signature)

(Typed Name of Corporation)

Binder 2: Ownership Disclosure

TAB E: FACTOR 2 Ownership Disclosure

Binder 3: Technical Proposal

TAB F: Teaming Agreement(s), if applicable. See paragraph 2.2. Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture. See paragraph 2.3.

TAB G: FACTOR 3 Past Performance of Relevant Projects

TAB H: FACTOR 4 Technical Approach

TAB I: FACTOR 5 Designer of Record

The total number of pages should not exceed 100 pages in the aggregate.

4. EVALUATION RATINGS – PHASE 1

4.1 Proposal Ratings: Factors. Factors 1 will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Factor 2 will be rated as acceptable, susceptible of being made acceptable or unacceptable. Factors 3, 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated.

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

FACTOR 1 Bond Surety Letter

FACTOR 2 Ownership Disclosure

FACTOR 3 Past Performance of Relevant Projects

FACTOR 4 Technical Approach

FACTOR 5 Architect-Engineer (Designer of Record)

A rating of unacceptable on Factors 1 or 2 will render the Phase 1 proposal unacceptable and the offer will not be considered further for Phase 2.

See paragraph 6 below for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

4.2 Technical Rating Definitions.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 1.

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Acceptable Proposal provides a letter from an authorized Surety confirming that appropriate bonding is available to the prime contractor

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not provide a letter from an authorized Surety confirming that Appropriate bonding is available to the prime contractor

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 2.

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Green Acceptable Proposal provides information that demonstrates that the offeror and any major subcontractors or team members does not possess any foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) as determined by the Government.

Yellow Susceptible of Proposal provides information that does not demonstrates that the offeror and Being Made any major subcontractors or team members are free from any foreign ownership, Acceptable control or influence (FOCI) as determined by the Government but may be able to mitigate the FOCI issues or concerns.

Red Unacceptable Proposal provides information that demonstrates that the offeror or any major subcontractors or team members does possess foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) as determined by the Government that cannot be mitigated.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 4 and 5.

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

4.3 Past Performance Assessment Definitions. Factor 3 will be evaluated using the following Performance Confidence Assessments:

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 No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is (Neutral) so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Past Performance shall also be rated in accordance with the relevancy of the past performance. The following will be used for Factor 3:

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and Relevant 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.

5. PHASE 1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least three of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 3 for consideration in response to the past performance requirements of this RFP.

An Offeror that relies upon the performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, etc.) and their role on this project. In the case of joint ventures, at least one project will be submitted from each member to demonstrate past experience. This documentation shall be provided in Binder 3 of the Offeror's proposal.

5.1 FACTOR 1: BOND SURETY LETTER: Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the Offeror is able to provide a bid bond for Phase 2 and obtain performance and payment bonds should they win the contract.

The bonding requirements should be based on the current (at time of release of solicitation) incremental funding information, which is as follows:

Incremental Funding Stream:

Upon award: 30 Nov 2012: $255M FY14 Increment: 31 Mar 2014: $370M FY15 Increment: 31 Mar 2015: $101M

5.2 FACTOR 2: OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE: Offerors shall be required to submit a completed SF328, Security Questionnaire pertaining to foreign interest, for the prime contractor (to include all parties in a joint venture), the Architect-Engineer and all major subcontractors proposed in Phase 1 (Note: if additional subcontractors/team members are added in Phase 2, SF328s shall be submitted and approved prior to release of Phase 2 documentation to added subcontractors/team members). All Offerors and subcontractors shall be required to comply with DFARS 252.209-7001, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a the Government of a Terrorist Country, DFARS 252.209- 7002, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign Government and DFARS 252.2209-7004, Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Terrorist Country.

5.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE OF RELEVANT PROJECTS:

Projects submitted must demonstrate past performance by the physical and successful completion of similar projects within seven years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. For ongoing projects, 100% of the design and at least 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror shall submit past performance information on a minimum of five completed similar projects but not more than seven. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), at least three of the submitted projects must document the prime contractor’s past performance. The remaining projects may come from other members of the contractor team arrangement, as defined above. In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must each submit at least one project under this factor. The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled “CONTRACTOR PAST EXPERIENCE” (Attachment B).

Similar projects must demonstrate all of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof):

Projects that were design-build projects in excess $250,000,000; Projects in excess of $350,000,000; Projects that included constructing buildings containing heavy mechanical, electrical, and cooling systems in support of large computer rooms/data centers and sophisticated information systems; and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction; concurrently maintainable data centers with basic utility infrastructure, electrical service (primary power and temporary construction power), water, and sewer.

Projects should also demonstrate one or more of the following elements:

Projects in excess of 500K SF of space, perimeter site security measures, fuel storage, water storage, chiller plant, fire suppression systems, electrical generator, UPS back up capacity, paving, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, site improvements, supporting facilities including water treatment facilities (pre and post), AT/FP and ADA. The Offeror may submit other types of projects, but must explain the relevancy of those projects to the project that is being solicited in this RFP.

Provide the Offeror’s assigned performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the Offeror’s performance on recent and relevant Design-Build projects. The Offeror should provide formal performance evaluation. Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626.

In addition to formal evaluations or if a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror shall obtain the information using the Past Performance Questionnaire included. See Attachment C. 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 3, Past Performance of Relevant Projects. 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 C), 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, Carlen Capenos via email at Carlen.capenos@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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last seven such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.4 FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH: Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs, to facilitate evaluation. Submit this information in the form of narratives and an organization chart.

5.4.1 Project Team Organization: Describe in narrative form, how the project team shall be structured. Describe the principle firms involved and their responsibilities. Identify the design-build team contractual members and personnel. The personnel must include at a minimum the Overall Single Corporate Program Manager, Overall On-site Project Manager, Project Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, Designer of Record Design Manager, Construction Project Manager, full-time on-site Safety Manager and full time on-site Quality Control Manager. All disciplines shall be led by an experienced professional registered in the discipline (if professional registration is available). The Offeror shall submit documentation as to the availability of Key Personnel that indicates each individual’s current assignment and the Offeror’s plan to ensure that the named personnel will be used on this project; however, if the named person isn’t available upon award, a person with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government. The Offeror shall discuss their approach to manage multiple, large-scale projects simultaneously. The qualifications of the design and construction personnel shall be provided. Identify the construction portion the Offeror intends to self perform and the items to be subcontracted. Similarly, the Offeror shall identify the areas they intend to design through consultants.

The Offeror will submit an organization chart identifying the proposed team that will execute this project. This organization chart should include the Offeror’s key personnel, and key subcontractors, testing firms, quality control and commissioning agents. The organizational chart shall show the relationship of each entity (at a minimum, show the following relationships: key subcontractors, testing firms, quality control and commissioning agent personnel) to the Offeror.

In addition to the organization chart, present a matrix of responsibilities which outlines the roles and responsibilities for the Offeror and each potential key subcontractor in executing the work breakdown structure activities of the project, including all construction activities for each major feature (i.e., site work, utilities, structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, security, building features, and commissioning). Generally describe the items the Offeror will self-perform and supply Key Personnel Resumes.

The Offeror must submit the names and qualifications of key project personnel to include the project manager, on-site superintendent, lead scheduler, quality control and safety manager. The resumes of these key project personnel identified above shall highlight specific experience and qualifications on projects of a similar type, size, and technical issues. Each of the named personnel must demonstrate experience as noted in the specifications for their specialty and be regularly engaged in the positions for which they are being proposed. The named managers will be the managers for this project. If the successful Offeror should substitute another manager, it will be subject to the approval of the Government.

The Key Personnel Resumes shall also include the following:

1. Personnel’s Title on this project

2. Number of years with this firm and with other firms

3. Number of years in this position or role

4. Specialization

5. Professional Registration (Type and State Registration)

6. Personnel’s specific experience and qualifications relevant to this project

Provide the Management approach to integrating the Design and Construction Teams throughout the Design and Construction Phases of the project to include design refinement after acceptance of Issued For Construction (IFC) sets.

5.4.2 Design Organization: This project is principally a concurrently maintainable data center facility with ancillary support buildings and perimeter site security. The Offeror shall discuss its organizational structure for the design process. The discussion shall illustrate how this team will work with the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4- 010-01 DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings. The narrative shall state why your design firm is uniquely qualified to undertake this project, its approach to sustainable design and process of working with the customer during the design phase. The Offeror shall also discuss their approach to designing buildings with extensive and sophisticated HVAC, power and mechanical requirements that are integrated with the design. The Offeror shall also discuss how they have successfully designed to be within firm project budgets. The Offeror shall discuss how the Design Team will integrate within the Construction Team throughout the project life to include design refinement after award.

5.4.3 Construction Organization: This project is principally a concurrently maintainable data center facility with ancillary support buildings and perimeter site security. The Offeror shall discuss its construction organizational structure to build the facilities. The narrative shall state why your construction firm is uniquely qualified to undertake this project.

5.4.4 On-site Design-Build Management Team: Describe the on-site design-build management team’s responsibilities and staff organization. The description of the personnel shall describe the duties of each staff member.

5.4.5 Quality Management Control System: The Offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality through the design development and construction of the project. Discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process.

5.4.6 Organization Chart: The proposed organizational chart shall identify the members or entities of the organization and show the lines of authority and communication of all members of the design and construction entities. This chart should clearly indicate who the ultimate decision maker is for the proposed team.

5.4.7 Schedule: The Offeror must describe how it aggressively schedules this project. Discussion should also include how it has scheduled other projects of a similar nature. Information should include how to start the project;

discussions on important early activities, such as design, pre-work submittals, site organization, structural steel delivery, etc. The Offeror must describe and discuss its plan to sequence and manage key activities such as design, site work, building construction, and/or other key features. The Offeror shall describe how they will successfully schedule the project with incremental funding.

The Offeror must discuss its scheduling capabilities and procedures to be used for this project, which must include schedule updates, incorporating modifications into the schedule, and other steps to be taken to maintain the completion date.

The discussion on scheduling should include the following schedule and funding assumptions. This information may change in Phase 2 as more information is received, but the Government is interested in knowing how Offerors would deal with the proposed funding situation in regards to schedule.

Final completion date: 820 calendar days from NTP.

Incremental Funding Stream:

Upon award: 30 Nov 2012: $255M FY14 Increment: 31 Mar 2014: $370M FY15 Increment: 31 Mar 2015: $101M

5.5 FACTOR 5: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (Designer of Record): Projects that demonstrate the Offeror’s Architecture-Engineer (Designer of Record) (DOR) experience. Projects submitted for this Factor must demonstrate the experience of the DOR that the Offeror proposes to use for the project. The Offeror shall submit at least four but no more than six projects that demonstrate the DOR’s experience on design only and design-build projects. For ongoing projects, 100% of the design and at least 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed at the time of proposal submission. For design only projects, 100% of design must be complete. All projects must be submitted by the DOR. All projects must have been completed within seven years of the original date of issuance of this RFP.

Similar projects must demonstrate all of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof):

Projects that were design-build in excess $100,000,000; projects that included constructing buildings containing heavy mechanical, electrical, and cooling systems in support of large computer rooms/data centers and sophisticated information systems; Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction; and concurrently maintainable data centers with basic utility infrastructure, electrical service (primary power and temporary construction power), water, and sewer.

Projects should also demonstrate one or more of the following elements:

Projects in excess of 500K SF of space, perimeter site security measures, fuel storage, water storage, chiller plant, fire suppression systems, electrical generator, UPS back up capacity, paving, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, site improvements, supporting facilities including water treatment facilities (pre and post), AT/FP and ADA..

The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled “CONTRACTOR PAST EXPERIENCE” (Attachment B).

6. PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 FACTOR 1: BOND SURETY LETTER: This factor will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

6.2 FACTOR 2: OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE: A contract will not be awarded to a firm or subsidiary of a firm if it is determined that the government of a terrorist country has significant interest in the firm or subsidiary or if the firm is determined to be under foreign ownership, control or influence of countries (FOCI) that support terrorism or are considered critical intelligence threats. Subcontracts identified in the proposal are subject to the same eligibility determination.

If the government determines there is or may be FOCI, the Government may seek clarification to make a final determination if the Offeror is eligible for award. If an Offeror is not determined to be free of FOCI issues, the Offeror, may be permitted to submit a mitigation strategy.

This factor will be rated as acceptable, susceptible of being made acceptable or unacceptable. If this factor is rated as unacceptable, the entire proposal will be deemed unacceptable and therefore eliminated from further consideration.

6.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: Past performance will be rated in terms of how likely there is a performance risk to the Government; that is, high confidence performance ratings will be taken as indicators of a low risk that the Offeror will successfully perform the work. The more relevant a proposed project is the more weight it will be given in the overall confidence assessment rating. If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror must state that fact.

That Offeror will be rated as Unknown Confidence/Neutral.

Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Demonstrated higher performance evaluations on relevant Federal Government and/or Corps of Engineers projects.

b. Demonstrated excellence in construction through receipt of professional or industry awards for same project submission. (Copies of awards must be included in the proposal for validation.)

c. Multiple project relationships with the proposed designer.

d. In the case of a Joint Venture or Prime/sub relationship, long term relationships and previous experience working together.

e. Multiple project relationships with the Intelligence Community.

f. Projects that successfully demonstrated meeting aggressive schedules and/or fast tracked projects.

6.4 FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.4. that demonstrates a sound approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

6.5 FACTOR 5: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (DESIGNER OF RECORD): The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.5. that demonstrates the DOR’s experience in similar projects and ability to successfully meet all of the requirements related to designing a constructible project for this requirement.

Extra consideration may be given for the past performance of the following:

a. Projects that show prior experience with the Prime Offeror.

b. Projects with fast track design, construction project delivery, and turnkey project delivery.

c. Projects with the federal government, or specifically U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

7. PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

7.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will review all prepared reports. The SSEB will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) evaluations of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Authority with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion. A Source Selection Advisory Committee will be briefed prior to the SSA being briefed and may provide a comparative analysis to the SSA.

7.2 Ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation.

7.3 Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that a Phase 1 most highly qualified Offerors determination will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

7.4 Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with Offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the Offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government.

7.5 The maximum number of Offerors chosen to advance to Phase 2 shall not exceed three.

7.6 The Phase 2 solicitation will be issued via Amendment to the Offeror’s selected to advance to Phase 2.

7.7 In Phase 1, Factor 3, Factor 4 and Factor 5 are of equal importance. Factor 1 must receive a rating of acceptable. Factor 2 must receive a rating of acceptable or susceptible of being made acceptable to be considered for Phase 2. An unacceptable rating in Factors 1 or 2 will render the entire proposal unacceptable and the proposal will be removed from further consideration. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors are deemed to be the most highly qualified.

8. BASIS OF PHASE 2 AWARD

Advanced from Phase 1:

FACTOR 3 PHASE 1 PAST PERFORMANCE OF RELEVANT PROJECTS RATING

FACTOR 4 PHASE 1 TECHNICAL APPROACH RATING

FACTOR 5 PHASE 1 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (DESIGNER OF RECORD) RATING

Phase 2 Factors:

FACTOR 6 PROJECT NARRATIVE/SCHEDULE (Technical Approach) FACTOR 7 DRAWINGS, ELEVATIONS AND SITE PLAN (Conceptual)

FACTOR 8 SUBCONTRACTORS

FACTOR 9 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

FACTOR 10 PAST PERFORMANCE IN THE UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

FACTOR 11 PRICE

FACTOR 12 OFFEROR INTERVIEW AND PRESENTATION

When combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than price. Of the non-price factors the following factors are in descending order of importance: Factor 6, Factor 7, Factor 12, Factor 8, Factor 9, Factor 10, Factor 3 Factor 5 and Factor 4.

Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offeror submitted the proposal that represents the “best value” to the Government for this project.

9. FORMS

Forms for Offeror’s use in responding to this RFP are provided on the following pages. They include:

Attachment A: Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest Attachment B: Contractor’s Projects Sample Sheet Attachment C: Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment A

Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest (Form to be inserted with official solicitation).

Attachment B

CONTRACTOR’S PAST EXPERIENCE

Contractor’s Name (Who performed the work?):

Project Name:

Project Location:

City, State

<<Picture>> Project Owner: Point of contact information (owner name, POC name, address, and phone minimum) If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

Detailed Description: General scope and relevance. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal.

Detailed Explanation of Relevancy:

Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons…