Solicitation.pdf

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Construction in support of projects located in the Baltimore-Washington corridor but also can be used throughout CONUS and Haw aii. The contract capacity is $499,000,000.00 and w ill have a guaranteed minimum of $5,000.00 per aw ard. The period of performance is f ive years from date of aw ard.

This acquisition w ill utilize a tw o phase, best value methodology to establish the MATOC base contract aw ards on an unrestricted and restricted basis. The intent is to aw ard up to five unrestricted contracts and up to five small business contracts to the responsible offerors w hose proposals are determined to be the “best value” to the Government.

NAICS: 236220. Size Standard: $36.5M.

Requests for information (RFI's) shall be submitted in w riting to Ashley Williams at Ashley.Williams@usace.army.mil. The deadline to submit RFI's is 2PM on Wednesday, November 11, 2015.

The required amount for bid bonds is $10M for those proposing in the restricted (i.e. small business) pool and $25M for those proposing in the unrestricted pool. See FAR 52.228-1.

ASHLEY WILLIAMS 410-962-3557

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

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

NEGOTIATED

23-Oct-2015

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________1826 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________5 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________03 Dec 2015 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

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

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

D. Offers providing less than _______240 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BALTIMORE DIS

10 SOUTH HOWARD STREET

BALTIMORE MD 21201-2536

W912DR

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

11:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: 410-962-6037 TEL: FAX:

W912DR-16-R-0001 66

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912DR-16-R-0001

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Multiple Award Task Order Contract

FFP

This is a five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) that encompasses a broad variety of construction services.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE

The minimum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not be less than the minimum quantity and contract value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not exceed the maximum quantity and contract value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

1.00 $5,000.00 999.00 $499,000,000.00

DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

1.00 $2,000.00 499,000,000.00 $499,000,000.00

CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

CLIN

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 5 yrs. ADC US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BALTIMORE DIS

ASHLEY WILLIAMS

10 SOUTH HOWARD STREET

ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21201-2536

410-962-3557 FOB: Destination

W912DR

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

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) and Hawaii. 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. The page count shall not exceed 50 pages. Past Performance Questioinnaires 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: $25M Single: $10M Aggregate: $100M Aggregate: $50 M

Note: Anticipated projects range from $50K 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 contruction or renovation/repair.

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

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.

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

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

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 personnel that will be assigned to the overall management of an awarded contract. Discuss the role and responsibility this key personnel will have.

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 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 include DB projects with a minimum completion value of $10M 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).

6. PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS: Past performance will be rated in terms of how likely there is a performance risk to the Government; that is, high confidence performance ratings will be taken as indicators of a low risk that the Offeror will successfully perform the work. The more relevant a proposed project is the more weight it will be given in the overall confidence assessment rating. If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror must state that fact. That Offeror will be rated as Unknown Confidence/Neutral.

Offerors may receive higher ratings if they can show successful past performance with multiple customers, multiple types of projects and both DB and DBB projects.

6.2 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.2 that demonstrates a sound approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

6.3 FACTOR 3: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER TEAM: The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in paragraph 5.3 that demonstrates the DOR’s experience in relevant projects and ability to successfully meet all of the requirements related to designing a constructible project for this requirement.

Offerors may receive higher ratings if they demonstrate successful experience with the prime contractor.

7. EVALUATION PROCEDURE

7.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Boards (SSEB) will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Boards (TEB) evaluations of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) with information to make informed and reasoned decisions. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale and brief the SSAC. The SSAC will prepare a report and brief the SSA and prepare any necessary items for discussion.

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

7.3 Discussions: Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details in their Phase 1 proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of Phase 1 proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1 -the Government may evaluate Phase 1 proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the government reserves the right to talk with offerors during Phase 1 and to request Phase 1 proposal revisions, if determined to be necessary and in the best interests of the Government by the Contracting Officer. Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that a Phase 1 “Most Highly Qualified Offerors” determination will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. The Government reserves the right to limit the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4).

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

7.5 Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

7.6 Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

7.7 The maximum number of Offerors chosen to advance to Phase 2 will be up to eight in each category.

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

7.9 Phase 1 selection of the “Most Highly Qualified Offerors.” Up to eight offerors in each category, which are determined to be the most highly qualified Offerors, will advance to Phase 2. The following chart describes the evaluation factors and their relationship:

PHASE 1

FACTOR 1 Past Performance of Construction Projects FACTOR 2 Management Approach FACTOR 3 Architect-Engineer Team

Factors 1, 2 and 3 are in descending order of importance. Therefore, Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, which is more important than Factor 3.

Up to eight most highly qualified offerors in each category will advance to

Phase 2.

7.10 If one category (unrestricted or restricted) is protested, it does not preclude the other category from being issued the Phase 2 amendment.

After all of the evaluations have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which offerors are deemed to be the most highly qualified.

8. BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD (After Phase 2)

Phase 2

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1 Phase 1: Past Performance of Construction Contracts Factor 2 Phase 1: Management Approach Factor 3 Phase 1: Architect-Engineer Team Factor 4 Seed Project Narrative Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan

PRICE FACTOR

Factor 6 Seed Project Price/Price Schedule

When combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

In Phase 2, Offerors ratings for Factors 1, 2, and 3 will advance from Phase1. The order of importance for Phase 2, will be Factor 4, Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 5.

Therefore, Factor 4 is more important than Factor 1, which is more important than Factor 2, which is more important than Factor 3, which is more important than Factor 5.

Trade-off Analysis: After evaluations of all Phase 2 proposals are completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors submitted proposals that represent the “best values” to the Government for this MATOC.

To be eligible for award, all proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

9. FORMS

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

Attachment A: Contractor’s Past Experience Attachment B: NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment C: Architect-Engineer’s Projects

ATTACHMENT A: CONTRACTOR’S PAST EXPERIENCE

<<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)

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

Also, include a detailed explanation of Relevancy.

Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons learned:

REA’s: # Submitted/$ Submitted

# Approved/$ Approved

Claims: # Submitted/$ Submitted

# Granted/$ Granted

Safety: DART Rate, Man hours

BGSF: XXX,XXX Lost Time Accidents:

Schedule:

Start Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Original Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Final Contract Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Beneficial Occupancy Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Cost:

Original Project Cost:

Final Project Cost:

Cost Difference

Original Subcontractor Cost:

Final Subcontractor Cost:

Cost Difference

Attachment B

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a…