26_Oct_Amendment.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment hereby incorporates the follow ing changes into the solicitation:

1. Provide responses to RFI questions 14 through 19.

2. Add the deadline date of 26 October 2015 to the RFI submissions.

3. Revise Section II. Solicitation Provisions, D. Proposal Submission, Section 00100, 3.7, Tab B.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 48

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Oct-2015

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912DR-15-R-0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Sep-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Oct-2015

CODE

REAL PROPERTY SERVICES F.O.

300 SENTINEL DRIVE

STE 400

ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION MD 20701

W912DR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR-15-R-0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Question 01: If the Designer of Record comprises more than one entity, for example, an MEP Engineering firm in addition to an Architectural firm, how many projects under Factor 3 will USACE accept for evaluation purposes?

Response: As stated in the solicitation, Factor 3 submission includes four, but no more than six projects to be submitted for the Offeror’s Architect-Engineer (DOR) experience.

Question 02: Please reference Page 6 of 87 Volume I: Technical Proposal, Tab B: Consent Forms from AECOM, Parsons, and MOCA. Based on our requests, the firms and individuals listed in the solicitation do not believe that they should submit NDA forms directly to the Offeror as their contracts are with USACE. Please advise how the Government will protect proprietary information, should the firms not issue NDA’s directly to the Offeror?

Response: All proposals to include propriety information will be kept confidential. AECOM and Parsons will be used in advisory rolls with regard to RFP language ONLY. MOCA will be used to analyze the Offeror’s schedule

ONLY.

Question 03: Section 2.1 General Instructions recognizes offerors may be “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 a proposal.”

Section 5.0 regarding Submission Requirements recognizes “contractor team arrangements”, with regard to projects submitted for Factor 1: Past Performance of Construction Contractor.

Section 5.5 Factor 3: Past Performance of Architect – Engineer similarly requires four to six projects be submitted to demonstrate the past performance of the Architect – Engineer.

It is typical for projects of this scope for multiple architects and engineering firms with specific discipline expertise to associate or team to provide the design services for the project. Please confirm that projects utilized for Factor 3 for architects and engineers can be submitted by multiple design firms, similar to the contractor requirement noted in section 5.0 above, if a formal teaming arrangement is in place per section 2.2 (Contractor Team Arrangements).

Response: Confirmed. However, the intent is for there to be one DOR throughout the entire proposal process (Phase I & II). A “formal team arrangement” is acceptable however please note the DOR may not be changed once the proposal is submitted.

Question 04: Will Projnet be utilized for Phase 1 questions and answers?

Response: No

Question 05: Will questions and answers be made public via forthcoming Amendments?

Response: Yes

Question 06: Reference: Section 3 – General Proposal Format, 3.3, page 6 of 87. Is the suggested page count of 100 pages and 200 page maximum inclusive of joint venture and teaming agreements along with other support documentation included in TABS A thru E?

Response: Yes

Question 07: What reporting structure will USACE require for the Quality Control Manager (QCM) and Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO)?

Response: As typical for USACE projects, please reference the USACE QCS Program and EM385-1-1.

Question 08: Will the QCM report to the Superintendent or a corporate official?

Response: See response to question 007.

Question 09: Will the SSHO be a member of the Quality Control staff and report directly to the QCM or to a corporate official independent of the Quality Control staff?

Response: Please reference the USACE QCS Program for CQC requirements.

Question 10: Can you please confirm the time for the Phase I due date? Block 13 states 10/30/15 at 12:00 PM.

Inside the RFP on page 6, it states 11:00 AM. Please confirm proposals are due at 12:00 PM.

Response: The response due date/time is 10/30/2015 at 12:00PM. See amendment 0001.

Question 11: Can we use previously completed NAVFAC/USACE standard PPQ’s? We have completed PPQ’s on file for projects and do not want to inconvenience the customers.

Response: Yes, previously completed PPQ’s are acceptable as long as they are in compliance with submission requirements of RFP section 5.3.

Question 12: Does USACE Baltimore anticipate extending the due date for proposals? We only ask due to the requirements on the proposal covers about due date and time and want to make sure we can produce documents now and not near the end.

Response: No

Question 13: Tab E Ownership Disclosure: Offerors shall be required to submit a completed 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. Is the Security Questionnaire also labeled Attachment A Statement of Affiliation? If not, would you please publish the required Questionnaire?

Response: Yes

Question 14: Will the government please revise its response to Question 006 from Amendment 0001 to exclude Tab E and Tab F from the 200 page limit? These tabs alone total nearly 75 pages and we will not be able to sufficiently respond to Evaluation Factors 1, 2 and 3 with these included the page count.

Response: Confirmed. Page limit shall only pertain to Tab H, Factor 2 Technical/Management Approach, Phase I.

Question 15: Attachment C Past Performance of AE (DOR)'s includes fields for "Subcontracted Work: Extent and type of work subcontracted out by percentage" and "Offeror's Role & Work Self-performed. Are both of these fields intended for Attachment C? These fields are not included as part of Attachment B. Should they be?

Response: Both attachments are correct as issued.

Question 16: RFQ Reference: Section 00600 – Representations & Certifications. Which TAB are the Reps & Certs to be placed?

Response: Tab G

Question 17: RFQ Reference: Attachment B & Attachment C, pages 24 thru 26 of 87. Page 26 of 87 includes two elements typically included with Attachment B - Past Performance of the Construction Contractor. Please advise if the Subcontracted Work section and Offeror’s Role & Work Self Performed is to be included in Attachment B and not within Attachment C – Past Performance of the AE (DOR)’s.

Response: Please see response to Q15.

Question 18: RFQ Reference: SF1442 and Section 3.3. Please confirm the time due, the SF1442 references 12:00 PM and Section 3.3, page 6 of 87 references 11:00 AM.

Response: Please see response to Question 10, Amendment 1.

Question 19: Tab B – Consent Forms: Is this still a requirement for Phase I proposals or will an amendment be issued this week removing this requirement?

Response: Requirement revised per Amendment 2.

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required performance has changed from PROJECT DESCRIPTION: East Campus Building 2 (ECB2) project located at Fort Meade, MD. The project consists of construction of a new multi-story 826,114 square foot facility, a 1,121,000 square foot parking structure, a 72,268 square foot mechanical plant, and an additional 500 spaces in a surface parking lot. This is an unrestricted acquisition utilizing a two phase best value tradeoff process.NAICS CODE: 236220 (Size Stanard: $36.5M)MAGNITUDE: Over $500MFunds are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract or award will be made until funds areappropriated and made available. There is no legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer, including proposal costs. to PROJECT DESCRIPTION: East Campus Building 2 (ECB2) project located at Fort Meade, MD. The project consists of construction of a new multi-story 826,114 square foot facility, a 1,121,000 square foot parking structure, a 72,268 square foot mechanical plant, and an additional 500 spaces in a surface parking lot. This is an unrestricted acquisition utilizing a two phase best value tradeoff process.NAICS CODE: 236220 (Size Stanard: $36.5M)MAGNITUDE: Over $500MFunds are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract or award will be made until funds areappropriated and made available.

There is no legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer, including proposal costs.The last day to submit RFIs is 26 October 2015..

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS – PHASE 1

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This RFP solicits for the Design and Construction of the ECB2 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 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 procedures, interested Offerors submit performance capability and technical/management approach proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.4 The Government will evaluate the performance capability and technical/management approach proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select 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, drawings, past performance of subcontractors, 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 The use of Contractors in the Evaluation of Proposals and other aspects of this procurement may be utilized. Be advised that the following companies may take on a limited role in the evaluation of portions of Offerors proposals:

AECOM, 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. The anticipated page count is approximately 100 pages, but shall not exceed 200 pages in total.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders. In addition to hard copies, all Offerors shall provide one (1) electronic copy of their submission on a CD-ROM. All files shall be submitted in PDF format and shall not be password protected.

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit the following:

Binder 1 (Volume I – Phase I Technical Proposal): an original and twelve (12) copies

3.6 Proposals shall be marked:

Date of Closing: _________________

Time of Closing: 12 p.m.

Solicitation RFP: W912DR-15-R-0024

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

Volume I: Technical Proposal

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 AECOM, Parsons and MOCA are no longer a submission requirement. USACE will obtain consent forms as required. Offeror’s shall submit Tab B with note that submission requirement deleted per Government.

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

THIS INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN INELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD.

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)

TAB E: Ownership Disclosure: Offerors shall be required to submit a completed 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, the Security Questionnaires shall be submitted in accordance with instructions provided to Phase 2 Offerors). All Offerors and subcontractors shall be required to comply with DFARS 252.209-7001, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country, DFARS 252.209-7002, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign Government and DFARS 252.209-7004, Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Terrorist Country.

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 of a country that sponsors or assists terrorism or is an intelligence threat. Subcontracts identified in the proposal are subject to the same eligibility determination.

If the Government determines thee is or may be an issue, 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 these issues, the Offeror, may be permitted to submit a mitigation strategy.

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 1 Past Performance of Construction Contractor, Phase 1

TAB H: FACTOR 2 Technical/Management Approach, Phase 1

TAB I: FACTOR 3 Past Performance of Architect-Engineer (DOR), Phase 1

4. EVALUATION RATINGS

4.1 Proposal Ratings: Factors. Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6 will be adjectivally rated. Phase 1 offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

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 Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6.

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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 not awardable.

4.3 Past Performance Assessment Definitions. Factors 1 and 3 will be evaluated using the following Performance Confidence Assessments:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

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 BOND SURETY LETTER: A Bond Surety Letter shall be submitted in accordance with TAB C under section

3.7. 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 Aug 2016: $ 24M FY17 Increment: 31 Dec 2016: $172M FY18 Increment: 31 Dec 2017: $280M FY19 Increment: 31 Dec 2018: $212M

5.2 OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE: Offerors shall be required to submit a completed Security Questionnaire I accordance with TAB E in section 3.7.

5.3 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR:

Projects submitted must demonstrate past performance of similar projects either in progress or completed within seven years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. For ongoing projects, either Design-Build or Design-Bid- Build, 100% of the design and approximately 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed at the time of proposal submission for Phase 1. The Offeror shall submit past performance information on a minimum of three completed similar projects but not more than five. 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 submitted is identified on the form entitled “PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR” (Attachment B) and “PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE” (Attachment D).

Relevant projects are defined as follows:

Design-Build projects valued at approximately $400,000,000 (present day construction value) or more;

Design-Bid-Build projects valued at approximately $350,000,000 (present day construction value) or more;

Projects in excess of 500,000 SF of space that included constructing buildings containing extensive infrastructure to include mechanical, electrical, fire suppression and cooling systems in support of administrative buildings containing large computer rooms and sophisticated information systems;

Operations Floor, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction; UPS backup capacity, Chiller Plant, Electrical generator, Parking structure, Perimeter site security measures, Anti- Terrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.

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 D.

The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance of Construction Contractor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Joe Neil via email at Joseph.Neil@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may use previously completed PPQs and do not need to have one completed specifically for this project but must include it as a hardcopy.

Also include performance recognition documents received within seven years of the original date of issuance of this RFP 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 2: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT 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, Lead Scheduler, 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. 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.

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, safety manager, Cx manager and D/B Integrator. 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 an administrative facility with an integral mechanical plant and supporting utilities, perimeter site security, and a parking structure. 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 an administrative facility with an integral mechanical plant and supporting utilities, perimeter site security, and a parking structure. 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. The successful Offeror shall establish a management office within 10 miles of Fort Meade, MD.

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 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, 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: 1514 calendar days from NTP.

Incremental Funding Stream:

Upon award: 30 Aug 2016: $ 24M FY17 Increment: 31 Dec 2016: $172M FY18 Increment: 31 Dec 2017: $280M FY19 Increment: 31 Dec 2018: $212M

5.5 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE OF 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 approximately 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.

The AE (DOR) submitted in Phase 1 is binding and will become part of the contract; a substitution for the AE (DOR) cannot be presented in Phase 2.

In order to be considered relevant, projects must demonstrate all of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof):

Projects that were design-build of approximately $350,000,000 (present day construction value); projects that included constructing buildings containing heavy mechanical, electrical, and cooling systems in support of large;

Administrative buildings with, operations floors, computer rooms and sophisticated information systems;

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction; with utility infrastructure;

Electrical service (primary power and temporary construction power).

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

Projects in excess of 500,000 SF of space Parking structure Perimeter site security measures Chiller plant Fire suppression systems Electrical generator

UPS back up capacity Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the forms entitled “AE (DOR)’s PAST PERFORMANCE ” (Attachment C) and “PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE” (Attachment D).

6. PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR: 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. Multiple project relationships with the proposed designer.

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

c. Multiple project relationships with the Intelligence Community.

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

e. Projects that successfully demonstrated the awareness and utilization of incremental funding.

6.2 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT 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.

6.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE OF ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (DESIGNER OF RECORD): 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. Offerors shall 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 proposals containing 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 Advisory Council 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 either oral or written 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 (3).

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 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 are of equal importance. Phase 1 selection of the three “Most Highly Qualified Offerors.” The three most highly qualified Offerors will advance to Phase 2.

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.

PHASE 1

FACTOR 1

PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACTOR (RATING)

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(RATING)

FACTOR 3

PAST PERFORMANCE OF ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

(DESIGNER OF RECORD) (RATING)

PHASE 2

NON-PRICE FACTORS

FACTOR 1

PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACTOR PHASE 1 RATING

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT APPROACH PHASE 1

RATING

FACTOR 3

PAST PERFORMANCE ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

(DESIGNER OF RECORD - DOR) PHASE 1 RATING

FACTOR 4

PHASE 2 PROJECT NARRATIVE/SCHEDULE

(TECHNICAL APPROACH)

FACTOR 5 DRAWINGS, ELEVATIONS AND SITE PLAN

FACTOR 6 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

FACTOR 7 PRICE

An unacceptable rating in any factor 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 Offeror submitted the proposal that represents the "best value" to the Government for this project.

8. BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD (After Phase 2)

Award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. Best value will be determined by utilizing the tradeoff process and performing a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the RFP.

Factors 4, 5, and 6 are more important than factors 1, 2, and 3. When combined, all non-price factors are more important than price.

9. FORMS

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

Attachment A: Statement of Affiliation (Questionnaire Pertaining to Foreign Interest) Attachment B: Past Performance of Construction Contractor Attachment C: AE (DOR)’s Past Performance Attachment D: Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment A

Questionnaire Pertaining to Foreign Interest

STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION

Name of Offeror: ______________________________________________________________________

Cage Code: __________________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________________

Phone Number: ________________________________________________________________________

Website: _____________________________________________________________________________

1. Does the offer hold an active DoD Facility Security Clearance (FSC)? Yes ____ No ____

(Answer “No” if the clearance was issued under a Special Security Agreement or a Security Control Agreement (see DoD5220.00-M sec. 2-306).

2. At any time within…