Amendment_0002.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. Revisions to RFI responses issued via amendment 0001

2. Responses to RFI's

3. Revise section 00100

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Nov-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-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Oct-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

17-Nov-2015

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BALTIMORE DIS

10 SOUTH HOWARD STREET

ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21201-2536

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR-16-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RFI RESPONSES - AMENDMENT 0002

Revised Responses to Requests for Information

Question 003: Section 00100, Subsection 2.3, 2nd Paragraph, Page 6 of 66. What type of evidence is required to satisfy this requirement for an 8(a) Joint Venture? Our notification to the SBA on the pursuit of an opportunity by the JV is due the same day as the proposal submittal, not before.

Revised Response: If an Offeror is submitting as a JV, the JV agreement must have been submitted to SBA.

A copy of the submission as well as the POC at the SBA shall be submitted with Binder 2.

Question 006: Section 00100, Subsection 5.1, first bullet, Page 11 of 66. On page 8 of 66, it is stated that anticipated projects range from $50k to $100M and yet the first bullet here in this Subsection requests projects in excess of $5M (100 times the anticipated project minimum). The $5M preference seems unfairly excessive.

Suggest this be dropped to $2.5M or something similar.

Revised Response: The anticipated value for task orders has been revised. It is anticipated that task orders values could potentially range from $5M to $100M.

Question 008: The 1st sentence states geographic boundaries of Continental US (CONUS) and Hawaii. Please clarify if work will occur in the following locations:

1. Alaska?

2. US Territories in Pacific Rim?

3. US Territories, such as Puerto Rico?

Revised Response:

1. Alaska – Yes (Added via amendment 0001)

2. US Territories in Pacific Rim – No

3. Us Territories such as Puerto Rico – Yes

*Section 00100 has been revised to include the Virgin Islands.

Question 019: Page 11 of 66: Please describe the types of “Civil and/or Road Construction Projects” that would be considered “Relevant” to this contract.

Revised Response: The Government has removed pure civil construction projects from being considered relevant. The NAICS code, 236220 does not include civil construction. Civil construction is not conducted on buildings, but rather Dams, Levies, etc. While Civil construction can also be associated with drainage remedies, land clearing/improvements, etc., those actions must not be the preponderance of the construction contract and must be incidental to the construction action.

Question 0021: Section 2.5, page 7. Offerors should submit their proposal to the address shown in block 7 of the SF. Would the Government allow the option to hand deliver the proposal to the address in block 7 of the SF.

Response: Yes

Question 022: Section 5.1.1, page 11. Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last six years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Would the Government exclude the recognition documents from page count since they will be included in the Performance Evaluation Section?

Response: Table of Contents, section tabs, any type of teaming arrangement documentation, performance recognition, and PPQs are not considered in the page limitation.

Question 025: Reference an Offerer’s experience requirement stated on page 10-11. Would the Baltimore District consider lowering the minimum contract threshold to $2.25M for the restricted category? Though a few small businesses may have completed projects in excess of $5M, many reputable ones have not.

Response: See response to question 006.

Question 045: Section 00100 Instructions, Page 9 of 66, Tab E. Tab E requirements include "Teaming Agreement(s) if applicable". Please confirm that a Teaming Agreement between two general contractors that will form a Joint Venture is acceptable in lieu of an executed JV agreement.

Revised Response: If an Offeror is submitting as a JV, the JV agreement must have been submitted to SBA.

A copy of the submission as well as the POC at the SBA shall be submitted with Binder 2.

End of Revised Responses

Responses to

Requests for Information

Question 054:

Response:

Question 055: Section 3.3, page 7. Page count shall not exceed 50 pages. Would the Government please confirm that the page limit applies only to Binder 2.

Response: Response: The 50 page limit applies to Binder 2, Technical Proposal, only.

Question 056: Section 3, page 7. Include a table of contents, title page and tabs for each binder. Please confirm that the table of contents, title page and tabs are excluded from page count.

Response: Table of Contents, section tabs, any type of teaming arrangement documentation, performance recognition, and PPQs are not considered in the page limitation.

Question 057: Section 5.1.1, page 11. Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last six years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Would the Government exclude the recognition documents from page count since they will be included in the Performance Evaluation Section?

Response: Table of Contents, section tabs, any type of teaming arrangement documentation, performance recognition, and PPQs are not considered in the page limitation.

Question 058: Section 2.5, page 7. Offerors should submit their proposal to the address shown in block 7 of the SF. Would the Government allow the option to hand deliver the proposal to the address in block 7 of the SF.

Response: Yes

Question 0059: Reference Attachment A in the solicitation. Would you have a word version of the attachment?

Response: No

Question 060: Reference Attachment A in the solicitation. What is BGSF?

Response: Building Gross Square Feet

Question 061: Reference Attachment A in the solicitation. Under cost difference are you expecting a number or an explanation of the difference?

Response: Both.

Question 062: Is this MATOC only restricted to Design Build and Construction Firms under 236220?

Response: Yes

Question 063: Are the Security Systems Design and Installations part of the Design Build or is that going to be Task Ordered out separately?

Response: Any project awarded under this contract will be done so as a task order. That specific task order may or may not be design build based purely on the requirements of the project.

Question 064: Page 16 of the solicitation uses the initials REA’s, what does REA represent?

Response: Request for Equitable Adjustment

Question 065: Page 16 of the solicitation uses the initials BGSF, what does BGSF represent? Possibly Building Gross Square Feet?

Response: Building Gross Square Feet

Question 066: Reference Attachment C, Page 22 of 66. Please clarify whether the AE Point of Contact and Title requested on Attachment C - Architect-Engineer Experience should be the client contact or the POC within the AE firm for that project.

Response: It should be the POC within the AE firm.

Question 067: The Response to Question 005 indicates that the minimum bonding requirements for the restricted category have been reduced to $5M single and $10M aggregate; however, the first paragraph of Section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form of Amendment 0001 indicates that $10M bond is required for the restricted category in multiple locations.

Response: The bonding for the restricted group is $5M single and $10M aggregate.

Question 068: Page 9 of 27, Amendment 1, Section 00100, 1.2 states “The estimated dollar range of seed projects under consideration is $5M - $20M.” If the required bonding capacity for the restricted category is $5M (single), how can the seed project be greater than $5M? Contractors advanced to Phase 2 may not be able to bond the seed project.

Response: This is a possibility. If this were to occur, the inability to bond the seed project, will not have a negative impact on the evaluation.

Question 069: For the restricted category, if all projects submitted must be greater than $5M to be considered relevant, why wouldn’t the minimum bonding requirements (single project) be greater than $5M to reflect the anticipated relevant project size? If relevant projects are anticipated to be >$5M for the restricted category, then the demonstrated single project bonding capability should be greater than $5M.

Response: It is anticipated that task orders values could potentially range from $5M to $100M

Question 070: Page 16 of 27, Amendment 1: Factor 3 – Architect-Engineer Team states “Relevant projects include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $10M or design only projects with a minimum value of $250K.”

Please consider modifying the value of the DB project to align with the value of project required under Factor 1 – Past Performance of Construction Projects for the various pools. For example, bidders submitting on the restricted pool would need to include Architect-Engineer Team projects with a minimum completion value of $5M for DB projects and the unrestricted pool would need to include Architect-Engineer Team projects with a minimum completion value of $25M for DB projects. This would allow submission of a completed DB project where the construction firm submitting the proposal could demonstrate relevant work experience with a proposed Architect- Engineer Team.

Response: The values presented are minimums. There is nothing that prohibits an Offeror from submitting a DB project at a greater value.

Question 071: Would the renovations to a dam and its associated machinery be considered a relevant Civil project?

Response: See response to question 019.

Question 072: Please consider an extension to the due of the proposal to December 18, 2015 at 2 PM EST.

Response: The proposal due date/time remains unchanged.

Question 073: Section 5.1, The government has lowered the threshold for the large business to promote competition. It’s harder for SB to qualify for the work with the $5M threshold. We request the government to consider lowering the threshold for SB to $2M. To promote the same sense and level of competition desired in the large business pool?

Response: The bonding requirement shall remain the same.

Question 074: If multiple projects for a single/same customer help totaling to the qualifying value for the PP threshold, could the government consider all the projects performed under the same customer?

Response: Each project submitted will be evaluated individually and may not be combined.

Question 075: We have a JV agreement that we have notified the SBA about as required, however it is our understanding that the JV agreement does not be approved by the SBA until project award. Section 2.3, paragraph 2 still states that we only need to provide evidence from the SBA that we have notified them about the JV for this solicitation. Is this still correct?

Response: If an Offeror is submitting as a JV, the JV agreement must have been submitted to SBA. A copy of the submission as well as the POC at the SBA shall be submitted with Binder 2.

Question 076: Amendment 001, Question 005, Page 2 of 27. The minimum bonding requirements were reduced from $10M single & $50M aggregate to $5M single & $10M aggregate for the restricted category. This is a substantial reduction made to include more eligible contractors. However, these new amounts seem to be an unreasonable threshold when faced with wanting relevant projects to be in excess of $5M and bidding an up to $20M seed project. Would the government consider reinstating the original $10M single & $50M aggregate amounts?

Response: The minimum bonding requirements shall remain $5M single and $10M aggregate.

Question 077: Amendment 001, Question 023, Page 5 of 27. Both the restricted and unrestricted contractors will be bidding the same seed project, and in accordance with Section 00100 of the RFP, that seed project may be valued as high as $20M. That appears to be an excessive value for the restricted contractors and doesn’t seem to coincide with the lowering of the bonding minimums as stated elsewhere. Would the government consider issuing a separate, smaller seed project for the restricted bidders?

Response: There will be a single seed project. Note that the inability to bond the seed project, will not have a negative impact on the evaluation.

Question 078: Amendment 001, Question 018, Page 4 of 27; and RFP Section 5.1, page 11 of 66. Based upon your answer to Question 018, will any project not meeting the “in excess of $5M” relevancy item but meeting the majority of the other relevancy criteria items on page 11 of the original RFP be considered irrelevant?

Response: Paragraph 5.1 states “Similar projects SHOULD DEMONSTRATE AS MANY of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible…” The $5M cost is not a requirement in order to be considered relevant.

Question 079: Question 006 and subsequent similar questions in Amendment 001 and the accompanying answers are confusing. The original RFP and the revised RFP state that:

Similar projects should demonstrate as many of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible:

* Projects in excess of $5M for restricted category or in excess of $25M for unrestricted category

* Design Build Construction Projects;

* Design Bid Build Construction Projects;

* Renovation/Repair Construction Projects;

* Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF);

* Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems Repair, Construction and/or Replacement;

* Civil and/or Road Construction Projects

This text does not imply that projects under $5M will not be considered as relevant if they include other listed attributes (for example a design build project for the renovation of a SCIF).

However the questions and answers could be construed that only projects with a construction fee above $5 million will be considered. Please confirm that the $5M cost is a desirable characteristic of the projects listed but not a necessary requirement and that projects of less than $5M can be listed provided they demonstrate other of the types included in the list.

Response: See response to question 078.

Question 080: Section 5.3, Architect-Engineer Team: The Solicitation does not mention or request PPQs under Factor 3. Please confirm that the government does NOT want Offerors to include PPQs for the A/Es.

Response: See response to question 045.

Question 081: Section 5.3, for projects submitted by the A-E firm, please confirm that the requirement that construction be 75% complete applies only to design-build and not to design only projects.

Response: If a project is DB, the design must be 100% complete and the construction portion must be 75% complete. For design only projects submitted, the design must be 100% complete.

Question 082: Section 3.3, May a matrix on an 11 X 17 fold-out be submitted if it is counted as two pages?

Response: If an 11x17 sheet is provided for any purpose other than organization charts or schedules, the sheet shall be counted as two (2) pages and marked as such. The information shall also be legible and pertain directly to the section in which it is provided.

Question 083: Attachment A - Page 16 of 66, please verify that the fields labeled Original Subcontractor Cost, Final Subcontractor Cost and Cost Difference are to be filled out by subcontractor team members submitting projects as permitted by 5.1. Factor 1 of the Phase 1 Submission Requirements, not the Prime.

Response: If an offeror is submitting relevant experience gained as a subcontractor on a larger project, the government expects to see the amount of that subcontract as well the overall contract amount. The intent of those items is to allow the offeror to provide that information.

Question 084: Page 12 of 66: Factor 3 – Architect-Engineer Team states “Relevant projects include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $10M or design only projects with a minimum value of $250K.” Please consider modifying the value of the DB project to align with the value of project required under Factor 1 – Past Performance of Construction Projects for the various pools. For example, bidders submitting on the restricted pool would need to include Architect-Engineer Team projects with a minimum completion value of $5M and the unrestricted pool would need to include Architect-Engineer Team projects with a minimum completion value of $25M.

Response: Restricted has been reduced to $50K for design only and $5M for design build. Unrestricted has been reduced to $250K for design only and $20M design build.

Question 085: Reference: Page 12/66: paragraph 5.3 Factor 3: Architect-Engineer Team: 3 paragraph states:… “Relevant projects include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $10 million or design only projects with a minimum value of $250K.” Is this for the restricted or unrestricted category? Please consider that the RFP requires a relevant project for the contractor in the restricted category to be a minimum of $5 million. Requiring the $10million relevant project requirement for Designer may eliminate projects good experienced projects between the $5-$10 million range that the DB/and contractor worked on together. This is one of the evaluation criteria for being highly qualified. Please allow $5.0 million DB projects for the designer in the restricted category.

Response: See response to question 021.

Question 086: 5.2.1 Factor 2 Management Plan – Please clarify if we are to submit key personnel resumes. If so, for which positions and are there any specific qualifications that need to be met for each position?

Response: Paragraph 5.2.1 is revised to replace the current 2nd paragraph with “Identify key POSITIONS that will be assigned to the overall management of an awarded contract. Discuss the role and responsibility this key POSITIONS.” Therefore, the Government is not requiring resumes.

Question 087: 5.3 Factor 3 Architect-Engineer Team, Page 12 of 66. Please verify that PPQs are not required for Factor 3 Architect-Engineer Team.

Response: Section 00100 has been revised to include past performance information for Architect Engineer Teams.

Question 088: Are we to submit the Solicitation Information and the Technical Proposal on the same CD-ROM?

Response: Yes

Question 089: Project experience for teaming subcontractor: Our construction team is defined by 2.3 (2); [a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors]. 5.1 states; If offeror is a joint venture, each team member must provide at least two projects. Does our teaming subcontractor need to provide at least two projects?

Response: If offeror is a joint venture, each team member must provide at least two projects.

Question 090: Factor 1 Criteria: We request that the government accept projects within 8 years prior to the date of the solicitation.

Response: The requirement remains at 6 years.

Question 091: Due to the requirements of the solicitation can the page count be extended from 50 to 100.

Response: The page count remains at 50.

Question 092: Can we use previous evaluations for the projects to be submitted in lieu of the forms contained in the

RFP?

Response: The solicitation allows for that.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100 - PHASE 1

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS – PHASE 1

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for Multiple Award Task Order Construction Contracts (MATOC) for Design Build (DB) and Design Bid Build (DBB) Construction projects in support of DoD and other Federal agencies. This solicitation is issued for full and open competition for a single pool that includes an unrestricted category and a restricted category. A restricted contractor is any offeror who meets the definition of any federally designated small business category. USACE, Baltimore District, intends to award up to five contract awards on an unrestricted basis and up to five contract awards on a restricted basis. The total estimated contract pooled capacity is $499,000,000. The minimum task order limitation is $2,000 and the maximum task order limitation is $100,000,000. The duration of each MATOC base contract will be five years.

1.2 The result of this solicitation will be the establishment of a MATOC with a single pool to include up to five unrestricted awards and up to five restricted awards. There are several projects under consideration as the seed project. The salient characteristics of these projects include: Vertical construction, full complement of construction disciplines to include: foundation, infrastructure, site utilities, superstructure, building systems; features of work include: interior/exterior mechanical/electrical / fire protection /HVAC/architectural finishes/ concrete/ plumbing / carpentry/ roofing. A fully scoped seed project is planned for inclusion in Phase II of this procurement. The estimated dollar range of seed projects under consideration is $5M - $20M. Each offeror must designate which category (unrestricted or restricted) they are competing in. An offeror eligible to propose in each category may do

so. An offeror who submits a proposal, one in each category, may only be selected for award in only category.

Offerors submitting under different teaming arrangements may submit more than one proposal.

1.3 Task orders may be either Design Build or Design Bid Build. The individual projects will be a variety of construction types. The task orders will range in size and complexity from small to large and from non-complex to highly technical. Funding may be either Military Construction funding (MILCON) or Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. Other types of funding may utilized if authorized for constructions projects.

1.4 All task orders will be firm-fixed-priced task orders.

1.5 A Top Secret Facility Site Clearance IS NOT required for this MATOC however individual projects specifically for the Real Property Services Field Office (RSFO) may require Statements of Affiliation (SOAs) for all companies. All contractors must have personnel that meet the U.S. citizenship requirements identified in the task order Scope’s of Work as some task orders will require only U.S. citizens to perform on those task orders.

1.6 Further details regarding this project include the following: This contract is for a broad variety of major and minor repair, modification, renovations, rehabilitation, alterations, DB, DBB and new construction projects that may include working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). The work may be very technical electrical or mechanical work. Projects may include demolition, infrastructure, interior fit-up, communications, security, counter terrorism, and anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) requirements. The prime contractor will be responsible for integrating, managing, and executing all aspects of the design and construction ordered under this contract.

1.7 The geographic area for this contract is anticipated to be within the North Atlantic Division (NAD) Mission Area, but may be used throughout the Continental United States (CONUS) to include Alaska, Hawaii and US Territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Work performed may be either in secure or non-secure sites.

Task orders set-aside for the restricted contractors will only be within the NAD mission boundaries. It is anticipated that the preponderance of the task orders will be within the Baltimore District boundaries. Any USACE District may use this contract.

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

1.9 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two Phase Solicitation Process. In Phase 1, interested Offerors submit performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.10 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select between five and eight offerors in each category who represent the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase 2.

1.11 In Phase 2, the Government will evaluate technical solutions, a small business participation plan and price.

1.12 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase 2 of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal. Those Offeros selected for Phase 2 will be provided the technical requirements package for the project, issued via amendment to the solicitation.

1.13 Offerors that are not selected to participate in Phase 2 will be notified and may request a pre-award or post-award debrief.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 There will be one pool in this solicitation. However, offerors will be required to identify if they would like to be considered in the unrestricted category or the restricted category. The restricted category is open only to small businesses under NAICS 236220. Any entity that does not meet this standard will be removed from consideration for the Phase 1 evaluation if submitting in the restricted category.

2.2 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this MATOC, 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. No “entity” may be awarded a contract in both categories.

2.3 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.

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, 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, Point of Contact (Name, Phone Number, and Email address), date of the submittal and which category the offeror is competing in, unrestricted or restricted (small business).

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 and will count as one page. The page count shall not exceed 50 pages (this applies to Binder 2 “Technical Proposal” only). Past Performance Questionnaires are not to be included in the page count. Please include page numbers.

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

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit the following:

Binder 1: Solicitation Information, original and one copy Binder 2: Technical Proposal, an original and five copies

3.6 Electronic Submission. In addition to the hard copies required in paragraph 3.5, all Offerors shall submit their proposal on a CD-ROM. Written portions of the proposal should be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

The electronic version shall be either a single file tabbed in the same order as the hard copy or multiple files hyperlinked to a single table of contents. Drawings should be in Microstation DGN. The schedule should be in an “.xer” format. Any portion of the proposal not available in electronic format, i.e. cut sheets, should be scanned in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, thus making it available electronically. The CD-ROM must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, and Offeror’s name. The CD-ROM shall be marked with a label stating “Unclassified//Controlled Unclassified Info.” In the event of any conflict between the electronic submission and the hard copy submission, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government bases its evaluation and ultimately, its decision. Electronic media may be submitted in an un-editable Format.

3.7 Proposals shall be marked:

Date of Closing: 3 December 2015

Time of Closing: 11 a.m.

Solicitation RFP: W912DR-16-R-0001.

3.8 The proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

Binder 1: Solicitation Information The CD with the electronic submissions should be included in this binder.

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: 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 a contract. This letter should include the single bonding limit as well as the aggregate amount of bonding available to the offeror.

The minimum bonding requirements are as follows:

Unrestricted Category: Restricted Category (Small Business):

Single: $20M Single: $5M

Aggregate: $100M Aggregate: $10 M

Note: It is anticipated that task order values could potentially range from $5M to $100M. Each task order will require payment performance bonds for the full value of the task order and will required a bid bond with each task order proposal.

TAB C: 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 D: Compliance Statement. The offeror is required to sign and certify that all items submitted in the proposal comply with the RFP requirements and any differences, deviations or exceptions must be stated and explained in this section.

Offerors are required to complete the statement and submit it with their proposals. Even if there are no differences, deviations or exceptions, the offeror must submit the signed Compliance Statement stating that no differences, deviations or exceptions exist.

Sample: Statement of Compliance: This offeror hereby certifies this proposal is in compliance with the solicitation and its requirements. There are no exceptions, deviations or differences.

Binder 2: Technical Proposal

TAB E: 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 F: FACTOR 1 Past Performance of Construction Projects

TAB G: FACTOR 2 Management Approach

TAB H: FACTOR 3: Architect-Engineer Team

4. EVALUATION RATINGS

4.1 Proposal Ratings: Factors 1, 2 and 3 will be adjectivally rated. 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 Past Performance Assessment Definitions. Factor 1 will be evaluated using the two aspects of the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence.

Relevancy ratings will be used by the Government in assessing the relevancy of the submitted projects to allow assessment of the overall confidence rating.

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Somewhat 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.

Based on the quality of the relevant efforts gathered, a single consensus performance confidence rating will be assessed.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

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

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

4.3 Technical Rating Definitions.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 2 and 3.

5. PHASE 1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Binder 2: Technical Proposal

5.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: Projects submitted must demonstrate past performance by the physical and substantial completion of similar projects within six years of the original date of issuance of this RFP. The Offeror shall submit past performance information on a minimum of three completed similar projects but not more than five. At least three of the submitted projects must document the prime contractor’s past performance. If offeror is a joint venture, each team member must provide at least two projects.

The remaining projects may come from other members of the contractor team arrangement, as defined above. The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled “CONTRACTOR PAST EXPERIENCE” (Attachment A).

Similar contracts may include construction projects in a variety of sizes, a variety of construction disciplines, varying degrees of technical complexity and both DB and DBB projects. 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. Projects can be either new construction or renovation/repair.

Similar projects should demonstrate as many of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible:

Projects in excess of $5M for restricted category or in excess of $20M for unrestricted category Design Build Construction Projects;

Design Bid Build Construction Projects;

Renovation/Repair Construction Projects;

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF);

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems Repair, Construction and/or Replacement;

5.1.1 Projects that demonstrate multiple experiences noted above may receive higher relevancy ratings.

TABLE 1 – 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 unawardable.

The offeror shall provide the performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the offeror’s performance on recent and relevant projects. The offeror shall provide formal performance evaluation if available.

Formal performance evaluations are those similar to the new Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or the former Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD 2626. The Government’s preference is the formal evaluation. If the formal evaluation is included, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is NOT required or desired.

If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the offeror shall obtain the information using the form entitled, “NAVFAC/ USACE Past Performance Questionnaire” included (Attachment B). 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 Projects. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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, Ashley Williams via email at Ashley.Williams@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. 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.

Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last six years 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.

5.2 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH: Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs, to facilitate evaluation. Submit this information in the form of narratives and an organization chart.

5.2.1 Management: Describe in narrative form how your company will manage multiple, concurrent task orders issued under the contract. Specifically, the proposal shall describe the overall corporate structure and how project teams are organized to support multiple and concurrent task orders, and the respective levels of authority. The narrative shall include a description of how your company will support the geographic boundaries of the MATOC.

Also, include why your team is uniquely qualified to undertake this contract, its approach to construction and working with the customer(s) during construction. The offeror shall also describe, in detail, its approach to Design Build projects.

Identify key positions that will be assigned to the overall management of an awarded contract. Discuss the role and responsibility of key positions.

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

5.2.2 Overall Quality Management Control System: The Offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality throughout the contract and per task order. Discuss quality management methods proposed in both DB and DBB project throughout the design and construction process.

5.2.3 Scheduling: The offeror must discuss its scheduling capabilities and procedures to be used for this contract and per task order. This should schedule updates, incorporating modifications into the schedule, and other steps to be taken to maintain the individual task order schedules.

5.3 FACTOR 3: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER TEAM: This MATOC may issue both DB task orders as well as pure construction task orders. DB task orders may include any type of projects described in paragraph 5.1. In order to assess the team’s ability to handle a variety of DB task orders, offerors may submit up to three Architect-Engineer (AE) firms as team members and their relative experience with DB projects. Projects should demonstrate the AE’s Designer of Record (DOR) experience. Firms submitted under this factor shall include firms that the offeror intends to use throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall submit a teaming agreement with the selected AE firm(s).

Offerors may present up to three AE firms. If information about any team member AE is properly submitted, the expectation is that this AE will perform work. Before utilizing another AE, the Government must consent.

The offeror may submit up to three projects from each AE firm presented. Projects should demonstrate the AE firm’s experience on design only and/or DB projects. For ongoing projects, 100% of the design and at least 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed at the time of proposal submission. For design only projects, 100% of design must be complete. All projects must have been completed within six years prior to the date of this

RFP.

Relevant projects for Restricted Offerors include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $5M or design only projects with a minimum value of $50K. Relevant projects for Unrestricted Offerors include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $20M or design only projects with a minimum value of $250K. The information regarding the projects that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled “ARCHITECT- ENGINEER PROJECTS” (Attachment C).

The offeror shall provide the performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the offeror’s performance on recent and relevant projects. The offeror shall provide formal performance evaluation if available.

Formal performance evaluations are those similar to the new Contractor…