W912DR-15-R-0048_AMD01.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

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er Requests for Information and to incorporate clarifications into Section 100 Instructions to Offerors.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jul-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-0048

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jul-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, X is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

24-Jul-2015

CODE

USACE, BALTIMORE

10 S. HOWARD ST.

ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21201

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-0048

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The Issued By organization below has been added:

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BALTIMORE DIS

10 SOUTH HOWARD STREET

ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21201-2536

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REPLY

# Question Answer

1 Is this contract only covering a certain 8a region or can any 8a pursue this? I could not find that it was covering a particular area of 8a qualifiers?

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 with the primary location being Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.

2 Page 1, SF 1442, Block 13. Please consider an extension to the due date for this proposal as three weeks turnaround seems unreasonable.

No the date will not be changed

3 Page 4, Section 1.2, Phase II Evaluation Criteria. Please clarify as 2nd full paragraph on this page claims that Factors 4 and 5, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 6 whereas the very next paragraph claims that Factors 1 through 5, when combined, are also approximately equal to Factor 6.

Section 1.2. please delete, "As with Phase 1, 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 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 4 and 5, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 6.

Phase 2 will be evaluated on Factors 1 through 6. For the purposes of the Phase 2 evaluation, Factors 1 through 5, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 6'. Relpace with, As with Phase 1, 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 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated.

Phase 2 will be evaluated on Factors 1 through 6. For the purposes of the Phase 2 evaluation, Factors 2 through 5 are approximately equal and each is more important than Factor 1. When combined, Factors 1 through 5 are more important than Factor 6.

4 Page 5, Section 1.4.2.c. Please clarify what is needed to satisfy the “Section 00600” requirement.

Section 600 was omitted in error, included in amendment.

5 Page 5, Section 1.4.2.d. Other than stating our bonding capabilities, is there anything else needed to satisfy this requirement?

Stating the individual and aggregate bonding capacity will be sufficient.

6 Page 6, Section 2.1. Are all projects required to be fully completed or are ongoing projects permitted as well?

All projects must be complete.

7 Page 7, Section 2.1.1. The first full paragraph on this page requires projects with a minimum completion value of $500,000. Can this minimum value be escalated as in the previous paragraph?

Yes; however, as with the paragraph above, 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.

8 Page 8, Section 2.1.1. The projects are required to demonstrate at least three of the elements listed at the top of page 8. For items such as foundations, roofing, interior finishes, Actual construction of the elements is required building systems and others, can solely the design of these elements qualify as demonstrated experience or must it be in the actual construction of these elements? Suggest that experience with design OR construction of elements qualify as demonstrated experience.

Otherwise, the critical design of these type systems will be given less value than it deserves resulting in the possible selection of an unqualified team.

9 Page 8, Section 2.1.2. In lieu of a client submitting a PPQ for a project, can we instead submit an ACASS or CCASS for that project as part of our proposal?

CPARS (ACASS, CCASS) will not be accepted in lieu of a PPQ; however, 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), other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

10 Is the Offeror required to submit the entire completed PPQ as referenced on page 8, Section 2.1.2, or just a copy of the first page as noted on the final paragraph of Page 8 going onto Page 9?

The client for the submitted project must complete the enitre PPQ-0. If the Offeror is unable to obtain the entire completed PPQ-0 from the client prior to the proposal submission date, the Offeror must then complete the first page of the PPQ-0 for the associated project and submit it with the proposal.

11 Can the Offeror submit CCASS or CPARs in lieu of PPQs?

No. See reponse 12.

12 Can the Offeror submit previously completed PPQs so long as it uses the same PPQ-0 form?

Previously completed PPQ-Os may be submitted provided they do not reference another solicitation. PPQ-O must solely reference this solicitation.

13 What is the Estimated Budget or a Probable Cost magnitude for this job?

This acquisition will result in the award of a base contract of $4M with two $2M options for a total possible amount of $8M.

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQ

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for award under the competitive $8M 8(a) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC). This acquisition will result in the award of a base contract of $4M with two $2M options for a total possible amount of $8M. 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 five (5). 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 8(a) set-aside, competitive RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained herein.

The Contractor will provide all design, management, supervision, labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for the performance of the work. The fixed priced task orders may be either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build. The task orders will vary in size and complexity. 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 includes, but is not limited to, repair and renovation of existing facilities potentially of the following types: industrial, distribution, manufacturing, office, recreational, healthcare, and commercial. Representative work examples may include general interior finish upgrades and space reconfiguration, electrical service improvements, roofing materials replacement, mechanical systems repair, storm drainage structure repair, plumbing repairs and improvements, walkways, wetlands, UXO, wildlife preservation/conservation concerns, etc. Work may also include construction of new facilities. Representative work examples may include construction of small classroom facilities, toilet facilities, shelters, gazebos, etc.

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 with the primary location being Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen/Edgewood, Maryland.

1.2. Source Selection: 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”.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make the best value determination based on a comparative assessment of both technical and price proposals against all source selection criteria. 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

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 2 and 3 are approximately equal, and each are more important than Factor 1 for phase I determination of most highly qualified.

PHASE II

Factor 4 - Seed Project - Management Approach Factor 5 - Seed Project - Technical Approach Factor 6 - Price

As with Phase 1, 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 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated.

Phase 2 will be evaluated on Factors 1 through 6. For the purposes of the Phase 2 evaluation, Factors 2 through 5 are approximately equal and each is more important than Factor 1. When combined, Factors 1 through 5 are more important than Factor 6.

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. Volume II – Administrative Documents (original, no copies)

c. Electronic Requirement - In addition to the written binder requirement in block 13A of the

SF1442, all Offerors must provide electronic copies of their, technical proposal in searchable .pdf format on a compact disc(s) (CD) (original and four copies).

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 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 and on each CD. 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 40 pages in the aggregate. 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 40 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count). The data appearing in Factor 1, behind tab 2.1.2., relating to past performance evaluations and awards, are not counted in the overall page limitation and do not require page numbers.

1.4.2. Volume II (Administrative Documents): The Administrative Documents must be placed in a separate envelope. It must contain the following:

a. SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). Note: All amendments must be acknowledged in block 19;

b. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

c. Section 00600.

d. Provide current single and aggregate bonding capability.

Those down selected to Phase II will have to re-sign the SF1442.

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 that meet the requirements for Factor 1 for consideration in response to the experience requirements of this solicitation.

An Offeror that relies upon the experience and performance history of a member, members or affiliates of a proposed contractor team arrangement must provide a teaming agreement or commitment (in the case of any affiliates) signed by all parties. The teaming agreement/commitment shall:

1. Identify the legal name(s) of all entities

2. Describe 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/commitment 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. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

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.

In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract.

This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

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. 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 solicitation issuance date. 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. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment A.

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

2.1.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on no more than ten (10) completed projects. Each project must comply with the teaming agreement requirements in paragraph 2, the date requirements in paragraph 2.1, be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $750,000 considering adjustment for escalation from project completion to 2015. 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.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, mentor/protégé or utilizes an affiliate between a 8(a) and other than small business, at least two projects submitted within this factor MUST be experience representing the 8(a)/protégé Prime Offeror. This project MUST be relevant in terms of completion within six (6) years, have a minimum completion value of $500,000, and demonstrate experience with similar project and the elements 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 from IDIQ contracts; however, each must be completed and meet the minimum requirements of the factor and paragraph 2 above. Indicate whether each task order is from a MATOC or Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC).

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

General Construction

Each project must clearly be labeled as Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build and New construction or Renovation. Each project must demonstrate experience with similar project types listed below:

Similar General Construction projects should include experience in the following:

Multi-story, administrative buildings;

Multi-story, multi-purpose buildings for housing;

General purpose buildings with administration;

Buildings with large functioning areas for audio-visual and teleconferencing;

Buildings with Open Storage;

Equipment Storage or Maintenance;

Warehouse building;

Training Facilities/Schools;

Emergency Services Centers;

Childcare Centers;

Auditoriums.

And demonstrate at least three (3) or more of the elements listed below:

Site work, Foundations, Structural, Architectural, Stormwater Management, Roofing, Solar/Renewable Energy, Exterior finishes, Wetlands

UXO

Wildlife preservation/conservation concerns, Interior finishes, Sensitive Compartmented Information

(SFIC) features either room, floors, or building, Mechanical/HVAC systems, Electrical systems, Fire alarm systems, IT/Communications, Commissioning.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify, detail and demonstrate the relevancy of the submitted projects to the solicitation criteria elements. The evaluation committee WILL NOT make assumptions.

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

2.1.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS:

Formal performance evaluations shall be provided on the projects submitted in response to Section 2.1.1 above. 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.

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).

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.

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 intent of this factor is for the Offeror to describe their management approach to this SATOC. 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

SATOC.

2.2.1. Project Management:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative discussing their previous experience with IDIQ type contracts (MATOC/SATOC) and/or previous projects and must include each of the following:

The Offeror must include discussions on the home office and overall contract management.

Discussion shall include management aspects specific to the solicited work, such as the roles and responsibilities of small business and any affiliate team members, the dedicated management staff assigned to this contract (i.e. Project Manager, Project Executive, Superintendent, etc.).

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 shall address management of individual task orders, and shall include its approach to the submittal process and permitting. The Offeror must describe how the following will be applied to the overall contract as well as individual task orders in order to increase the likelihood of success;

o Previous successes, o Any challenges encountered, o Lessons learned.

The Offeror must address how they will approach the management and resourcing of multiple, concurrent projects in different locations.

The Offeror must address how they will approach the scheduling of multiple, concurrent projects in different locations.

The Offeror must include how it plans to coordinate with subcontractors in each state within the Baltimore District area of responsibility.

The proposal shall identify how the overall communication will be managed with the Government.

Describe how the project teams, including subcontractors, will communicate with each other to achieve results.

Discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process.

The Offeror shall identify trades typically self perform.

2.2.2. Project Team:

a. The Offeror must submit an organizational chart identifying the proposed management team for the SATOC with specific individuals named that will execute this SATOC at an overall management level. This organizational chart must include the following:

The Offeror’s key personnel that will management the SATOC.

In the case of an Offeror utilizing individuals from affiliates as key personnel, the affiliate company must be identified in the chart with the individual’s name.

b. The Offeror must submit resumes for the entire SATOC management team including:

Intended home office management (i.e. Project Manager, Project Executive, etc.);

Possible on-sight personnel and positions.

NOTE: If the personnel identified in paragraphs a and b above are not available upon award, personnel with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government.

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.

o 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 and Approval Site organization Security requirements Temporary facilities Material delivery o 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 no earlier than six (6) years of the issuance of the solicitation, 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. Projects that are considered more relevant 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 contains contract specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 2.2 in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of and practical approach to managing the SATOC and the task orders under it. 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 contains contract specific discussion on the significant features of the work that are identified in paragraph 2.3, demonstrates a reasonable and realistic approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements, 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 per the solicitations small business set aside. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and ratings of all proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. 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 2 and 3 approximately equal and each is more important than Factor 1.

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; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for analysis.

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 five (5)) 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; not to exceed five (5) offerors.

PHASE II FACTORS: Phase II proposals will be evaluated based upon the design-build factors identified below. The evaluation rating for factor 1-3 shall move forward from phase I, without further evaluation or additional information. Factors 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated and Factor 6 will be evaluated. Factors in phase two will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

FACTOR 4 - SEED PROJECT - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

FACTOR 5 - SEED PROJECT - TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 6 - PRICE (INCLUDING BID GUARANTEE)

Phase 2 will be evaluated on Factors 1 through 6. For the purposes of the Phase 2 evaluation, Factors 2 through 5 are approximately equal and each is more important than Factor 1. When combined, Factors 1 through 5 are more important than Factor 6.

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.

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. The ratings for the Technical Factors will be expressed as an adjective. The “rating” is simply the adjective itself. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating.

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 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), SSEB, Advisors, Cost/Price Experts, Legal Counsel 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

ATTACHMENT A

EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

<<Picture>>

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

Project Name:

Project Location:

City, State

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

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

Explanation of Relevancy (Must be in narrative format): All relevant projects must clearly identify at least three of the elements specified under section 2.1.1.

Explanation of…