W912DR-14-R-0003.pdf

US Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District

SOLICITATION FOR

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER

CONTRACT (MATOC)

DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN-BID-BUILD

IN SUPPORT OF US ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS (USACE) BALTIMORE

DISTRICT (NAB)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. W912DR-14-R-0003

DATE: June 10, 2014

THIS PROCUREMENT IS A 100% SMALL-BUSINESS

SET-ASIDE.

SUBMITTAL OF BIDS: BIDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED IN DUPLICATE. BIDDERS ARE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:

(1) SECTION 00010 - STANDARD FORM 1442

(2) SECTION 00010 - PRICE SCHEDULE

(3) SECTION 00600 - REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC)

DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN-BID-BUILD IN SUPPORT OF

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) BALTIMORE DISTRICT (NAB)

The Statement of Work (SOW) is contained in Section 1.1 of the Proposal Subimission Instructions

STEPHEN A STOLTE 410-962-2711

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

10-Jun-2014

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

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 ________1825 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________Section 800

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 __________2 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________02 Jul 2014 (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 X is, 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 _______180 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

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BALTIMORE DIS

10 SOUTH HOWARD STREET

BALTIMORE MD 21201-2536

W912DR

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

11:00 AM (hour) Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: 410-962-6784 TEL: FAX:

W912DR-14-R-0003 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-14-R-0003

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Job

MATOC Task order NTE $49,900,000

FFP

Contractor will provide all services for the performance of task order(s) as specified within the Statement of Work. This is a shared MATOC pool with a cap not to exceed $49,900,000.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

PROPOSOAL SUBMISSION REQ

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This Request For Proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from offerors interested in being selected for construction of competitive $49.9M Small Business Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). This is Phase I of a two-phase RFP. This RFP is requesting submission of proposals under phase one submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating phase one proposals, the contracting officer will select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit phase two proposals. The maximum number of offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed eight (8). Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase II submission criteria at this time. Submitting any information under Phase II criteria may lead to disqualification of your proposal. This is Small Business set-aside competitive RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained herein.

The effort required under this contract will be performed within the Baltimore District area of responsibility including Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, however the contract could potentially be used for civil works projects in New York.

The Contractor will provide all design, management, supervision, labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for the performance of the work. Task orders may be either Design-Build or Design-Bid- Build. The task orders will range in size and complexity from small to large and from non-complex to non-technically complex. Funding may include Military Construction funding (MILCON), Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding, or other types of funding. The nature and categories of work to be performed under this contract include but are not limited a variety of construction types from mechanical and electrical to new construction. Further details regarding the type of project include the following:

This contract is for a broad variety of major and minor repair, modification, rehabilitation, alterations and new construction projects as well as Civil Works projects in support of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its customers in the Baltimore District. Further projects may include: schools, administrative or special-use buildings, housing, etc. The requirements for the nature and categories of work to be performed under this contract include but are not limited to the following: site clearing, earthwork, site drainage and utilities, roads and walks, cast in place concrete, brick masonry, block and tile masonry, building renovation, new construction, asbestos abatement, lead paint removal, structural steel, steel joists and decking, rough carpentry, finish carpentry, built in cabinetry and furniture, roofing and siding, sheet-metal work, doors, windows and glazing, window coverings, entrances and store fronts, lath and plaster, drywall, painting and wall coverings, floor tile and carpeting, a variety of mechanical/electrical work, fire extinguishing systems, fire alarm systems, intrusion detection systems, heating and air conditioning, ventilating equipment and systems, ducts and controls, boxes and wiring devices, starters, breaker panels, switching devices and transformers, lighting, primary and secondary power systems, etc. These MATOCs may be used to acquire time-sensitive disaster or emergency assistance construction activities related to flood control and water diversion projects, including but not limited to stream bank and shoreline stabilization/protection, ecosystem/habitat restoration and flood damage reduction within the Baltimore District's territory. The geographic area for this contract is to be limited to the Baltimore District Region which extends from West Virginia to Maryland and north into New York.

1.2. Source Selection: This is a competitive acquisition for the award of not more than four (4) MATOC’s with Task Orders that will be firm-fixed price. The contract will be awarded to the Offerors whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below:

PHASE I

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Approach

Factor 3 - Technical Approach

PHASE II

Factor 4 - Seed Project 1 (Building 4501) - Technical Approach Factor 5 - Seed Project 1(Building 4501) - Schedule Factor 6 - Seed Project 2 (TBUP 8609) - Technical Approach Factor 7 - Seed Project 2(TBUP 8609) - Schedule Factor 8 - Price

Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors. Factors 1 through 7 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 through 7, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 8.

It is the intent of the Government to seek proposals from qualified Offerors with experience in the significant features of this RFP and who can demonstrate a successful performance history in completing relevant projects. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Trade-Off Process.

The successful Offerors will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government”.

1.3. Each Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes:

a. Phase 1: Volume I – Past Performance, Management Approach, and Technical Approach, (Factors 1-3), (original and four copies)

b. Electronic Requirement - In addition to the written binder requirement in block 13A of the SF1442, all Offerors must provide an electronic copy of their, technical proposals in .pdf format on a compact disc(s) (CD).

The content of these volumes is discussed in section 1.4, below.

1.4. Specific Requirements: An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this RFP. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal. Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. The Offeror’s name, RFP number, and date must be affixed to the outside of each volume. Each volume must have a table of contents. Each volume’s contents must be separated by tabs as discussed below. The proposals must be in an 8-1/2” x 11” format (except for the project schedule, organization chart, and drawings; for which a folded 11” x 17” format may be used, and the entire project schedule shall be counted as one page provided the only information presented is scheduling). Pages may be single-sided or double-sided (double-sided pages count as two pages) and must be numbered. The minimum acceptable type size is eleven (11) point with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides. The information in each volume must be organized as follows:

1.4.1. Phase 1; Volume I (Past Performance and Technical Proposal) (Factors 1-3): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 2, below. The information must be divided by tabs and shall be organized as follows:

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Past Performance TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Approach TAB 3 - Factor 3 Technical Approach

The total number of pages must not exceed 50 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing in Factor 2 behind the tabs relating to past performance evaluations and awards (2.1.2.), are not counted in the overall page limitation. Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 50 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count).

1.5. Proposal envelopes shall be marked with the RFP Closing Time and Date and the Solicitation

Number. (See SF1442 Block 1 and Block 13)

1.6. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 7000, Baltimore, MD 21201, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1442, Block 13. Offeror proposals received after the required time and date deadline, will not be evaluated.

2. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)

For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. 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 fifty percent (50%) of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 1 for consideration in response to the experience requirements of this RFP. An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement must provide a teaming agreement signed by all parties, identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (partnership, joint venture, prime/sub or mentor/protégé) and their role on this project as a part of their proposal. The Offeror will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. The contractor team agreement shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions under Factor 1:

• 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 is considered the “Primary Offeror”.

• In the case of joint ventures, the “Primary Offeror” experience can come from any of the entities involved in the venture.

• In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. Once the relationship has been approved, the “Primary Offeror” experience can come from any of the entities involved in the relationship.

• In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience must only be submitted by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this RFP. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the same date range will also be considered. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided below entitled “EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” (Attachment A). 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. As requested on the form, the Offeror must provide a detailed explanation of how the Offeror managed and controlled the submitted projects.

*Note: In reference to Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC)/Task Order Construction Contracts (TOCCs)/Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: Task orders/delivery orders on MATOCs, TOCCs and/or ID/IQ contracts can also be submitted under Factor 1; however, each task/delivery order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor. Submissions of multiple task/delivery orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

2.1. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs, to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability.

2.1.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on no more than ten (10) completed projects. Each project must be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $750,000 considering adjustment for escalation* from project completion to 2014, completion within six (6) years of the RFP date and address the discussions requested on the attachment while meeting the requirements in section 2 above. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment A.

If the Offeror is a joint venture or mentor/protégé, at least two project submitted within this factor MUST be experience representing the small business/protégé. This project MUST be relevant in terms of completion within six (6) years, have a minimum completion value of $500,000, and demonstrate experience within the elements (3) as listed below.

Similar contracts may include construction projects in a variety of sizes, a variety of construction disciplines, varying degrees of technical complexity and both design-build and design-bid-build projects.

The Offeror may submit individual task orders/delivery orders from TOCC/IDIQ contracts; however, each must be completed and meet the minimum requirements of the factor and paragraph 2 above.

If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of ten completed projects, then the additional project(s) will not be evaluated.

Each project must clearly be labeled as Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build and demonstrate experience in three (3) or more of the following elements in detail for Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build projects:

• New construction,

• Renovation,

• Civil Projects, such as stream work

• Site work,

• Foundations,

• Structural,

• Architectural,

• Environmental concerns,

• Roofing,

• Exterior finishes,

• Interior finishes,

• Mechanical/HVAC systems,

• Electrical systems,

• Fire alarm systems,

• Commissioning.

The Offeror is encouraged to highlight unique capabilities as part of the project discussions and to demonstrate a variety of project types.

* Note: All escalation values are to be labeled as escalated and the Offeror must explain in detail their escalation rationale, which must include any formulas, calculations, assumptions, etc.

2.1.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS:

The Offeror shall provide formal performance evaluations from the client on no more than ten (10) relevant projects submitted in response to the paragraph above.

Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626. If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror must request that their client complete the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for Relevant Experience (Form PPQ-0) (Attachment B) and submit the questionnaire as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the Offeror must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated project and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date. Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; 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.

The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror (Copies of awards must be included under this factor for validation.).

Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment B) for projects submitted under the tab for EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the past performance confidence rating will be considered unknown/neutral confidence.

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.

2.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each paragraph, to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability.

Offerors are encouraged to provide a discussion within this section on how the past experience/performance of individual team members on similar projects will increase the success on the solicited MATOC.

2.2.1. Project Management: The Offeror must submit a detailed narrative on their management approach to this MATOC. The Offeror shall discuss their previous experience with SATOCs/TOCCs/IDIQs, MATOC type contracts and/or previous projects and demonstrate how success, problems encountered, lessons learned and best practices will be applied to the overall contract and individual task orders in order to increase the likelihood of success. The Offeror must also include discussions on the home office and on site management as well as any other management aspects specific to the solicited work, such as the roles and responsibilities of small business team members, the dedicated management staff assigned to this contract (i.e Project Manager, Project Executive, Superintendent, etc.), and must include how the Offeror plans to coordinate with subcontractors in other states in the Baltimore District area of responsibility. The Offeror must address overall contract management and management of individual task orders. The Offeror must provide current single and aggregate bonding capability. The Offeror must provide a narrative on how individual team members will be chosen for individual tasks; and which roles will be required for every task order. The Offeror must address how they will approach the management of multiple, concurrent projects in different locations.

The proposal shall identify how the overall communication will be managed with the Government. In addition, describe any communication strategies that have been successfully employed by your firm and the benefits recognized by the government and key stakeholders. Describe how the project teams, including subcontractors, will communicate with each other to achieve results.

The Offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their Safety program for the contract and each task order. The Offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality throughout the contract and per task order. Discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process.

2.2.2. Small Business Prior Experience (Not applicable if Offeror is proposing only as a small business):

In the case of a small business/large business joint venture or mentor/protégé agreement, the small business must submit narratives on their experience in projects similar in nature to the solicitation. The small business must describe within the narratives, the role of the small business in at least one (1) but not more than five (5) completed projects demonstrating successful completion within six (6) years (preceding issuance of this RFP) of projects similar in nature to the solicitation to include the start and completion dates as well as completion amount. The narrative must address the role and responsibility of the small business/protégé on that project and how that experience will enhance their ability to succeed as the prime on this solicitation. The projects discussed within the narrative do not have to be relevant in terms of final project completion amount but shall represent work completed by the small business/protégé.

2.2.3. Project Team: The Offeror must submit an organizational chart identifying the proposed management team for the TOCC with specific individuals named that will execute this MATOC at an overall management level. This organizational chart must include the Offeror’s key personnel. The Offeror must address key subcontractors, testing firms, quality control and commissioning agent. The organizational chart/s shall show the relationship of each entity (at a minimum, show the following relationships: small business/protégé team members, key subcontractors to include testing firms, quality control and commissioning agent personnel) to the Offeror as well as the lines of communication among the team. If the subcontractor firms have not been selected at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror must identify the intended subcontractor trades.

Additionally, the Offeror must submit a generic task order team organizational chart indicating how individual task orders will be managed and how those teams relate back to the general management team.

The team MAY be presented on a single organization chart or as two, but it must clearly delineate between Base TOCC management and individual task order management.

2.3. FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each paragraph, to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability.

2.3.1. Project Narrative: The Offeror must submit a narrative on its technical approach to ensure an on time completion of any individual task order. The Offeror must present a comprehensive, start-to-finish narrative on the significant management features of any scope of work. This discussion must include, but is not limited to, how the project will be initiated, important early activities (such as pre-work submittals, submittal processing/review/approval, site organization, security requirements, temporary facilities, and material delivery), and sequencing and managing important construction activities, etc.

3. PHASE 1; VOLUME I - EVALUATION CRITERIA (PAST PERFORMANCE AND TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL)

3.1. FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraph 2.1 above.

Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government; that is, projects that are considered to be non-relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, completion within six (6) years, discussions requested on the attachment while meeting the requirements established in section 2 (submitted under Factor 1); and low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the work. More relevant projects and high past performance evaluations will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Higher confidence assessments will be given for higher past performance evaluation ratings.

If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be rated either favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

3.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is detailed with a contract specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 2.2 in sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

3.3. FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is detailed with a contract specific discussion on the significant features of the work of this RFP that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 2.3 in sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that will lead to successful completion of all task orders within the contract duration.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1. Proposal Compliance Review: The proposal compliance review will ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical proposals have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose if the solicitation is a set aside. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and ratings of all proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. However, an Offeror’s failure to provide all of the requested information may adversely affect the evaluation or result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.

4.2. Phase 1; Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1-3) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors. Factors 1 through 3 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 through 3 are of approximately equal importance.

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Approach Factor 3 - Technical Approach (Base Contract)

See sections 2 above for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

Past Performance Ratings: There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Past Performance for Factor 1 (Past Performance) will be evaluated by evaluating the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.1.1., Experience in Relevant Projects, to determine the relevancy of a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror and assigning one of the relevancy ratings below. These ratings will then influence the overall Confidence Assessment for Factor 1:

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

NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

The following rating definitions will be utilized in the overall evaluation of Factor 1 (Past Performance) to determine the confidence assessment level accomplished by the Offeror. These ratings will be influenced by the relevancy ratings received for the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.1.1., Experience in Relevant Projects, as well as any CCASS ratings; information gathered from POCs, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials listed for and associated with the submitted projects; and any awards received for the submitted projects:

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/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.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Definitions: The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 2 (Management Approach) and Factor 3 (Technical Approach):

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.

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.

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.

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.

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

4.3. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The SSEB will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) 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 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may review all prepared proposals. 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, including the prices for each Offeror; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion.

4.4. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider Factors 1-3 to select the most highly qualified Offerors (not to exceed 8) to submit proposals for Phase 2. Those moving forward will be contacted with further information related to the Phase 2 requirements.

4.5. Communications with Offerors prior to Phase 2: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that a down selection will be made without communications. However, the Government reserves the right to communicate with Offerors if it is deemed necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If communications are necessary, the Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.6. Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award.

5. PHASE II:

5.1. Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that make a determination for inclusion in Phase II evaluations without communications based on responses to Factors 1 through 3. Therefore, Phase 1 proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. The Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals advancing to Phase II evaluations to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

PHASE II FACTORS: Phase II proposals will be evaluated based upon the design-build factors identified below. Factors 4 through 7 will be adjectivally rated and Factor 8 will be evaluated. All technical evaluation factors are considered approximately equal to each other and, when combined, will be approximately equal to price. Factors in phase two will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

FACTOR 4 - SEED PROJECT 1 (BUILDING 4501) - TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 5 - SEED PROJECT 1 (BUILDING 4501) - SCHEDULE

FACTOR 6 - SEED PROJECT 2 (TBUP 8609) - TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 7 - SEED PROJECT 2 (TBUP 8609) - SCHEDULE

FACTOR 8 - PRICE (INCLUDING BID GUARANTEE)

Phase 2 will be evaluated on Factors 1 through 8. For the purposes of the Phase 2 evaluation, Factors 1 through 7, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 8.

6.0 SUBMISSION DEFINITIONS

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as "PPIRS or FAPPIS."

Best Value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

Confidence Assessment is the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the procuring contracting officer’s (PCO) written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Formal source selection means the source selection process used where someone other than the procuring contracting officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA), normally for high dollar value or complex acquisitions.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P278_41746 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_303

Minor or Clerical Error is a minor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Rating is the evaluators’ conclusions (supported by narrative write-ups) identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of an evaluation factor or subfactor. The ratings for the Technical Factor and each of its Subfactors will be expressed as an adjective. The “rating” is simply the adjective itself.

The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to Offerors, including the SOO, SOW, Performance Work Statement (PWS), technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to Offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Source Selection is the process used in competitive, negotiated contracting to select the proposal that offers the best value to the Government.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results, when directed by the SSA.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost/Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non- Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

TEC is the Technical Evaluation Committee and is responsible for independent analysis of Technical Proposals compared to solicitation requirements.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The trade-off process, or tradeoff analysis, considers each proposal’s total evaluated price and the discriminators in the non-cost ratings as indicated by each proposal's strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The differences in light of the relative importance of each evaluation factor of the competing Offeror to determine which proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government and thus shall receive contract award. Trade-off analysis is a subjective process in that it requires the SSA to exercise reasonable business judgment.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

FAR 15.001.

7. EVALUATION FORMS: Evaluation forms recommended to be used in responding to this RFP are provided on the following pages. They include:

a. Experience in Relevant Projects

b. Past Performance Questionnaire

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.215-1 Alt I Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004) -

Alternate I

OCT 1997

52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

OCT 2010

52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data-- Modifications

OCT 2010

52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Act Requirement - Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements

FEB 2009

52.232-14 Notice Of Availability Of Progress Payments Exclusively For Small Business Concerns

APR 1984

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (JULY 2013)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number means the 9-digit number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.

(D&B) to identify unique business entities.

Data Universal Numbering System +4 (DUNS+4) number means the DUNS number assigned by D&B plus a 4-character suffix that may be assigned by a business concern. (D&B has no affiliation with this 4-character suffix.)

This 4-character suffix may be assigned at the discretion of the business concern to establish additional System for Award Management records for identifying alternative Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) accounts (see the FAR at Subpart 32.11) for the same parent concern.

Registered in the System for Award Management SAM database means that--

(1) The offeror has entered all mandatory information, including the DUNS number or the DUNS+4 number, the Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code, as well as data required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (see Subpart 4.14) into the SAM database;

(2) The offeror has completed…