Solicitation_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

W912DR-16-R-0003: Boundary Channel Drive Vehicle Access Control Point, Pentagon, Washington, DC

The Government inadvertently included tw o (2) versions of Section 00100 in Amendment 0001. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Section 00100 located under SF30 AMD01 of Amendment 0001. The Section 00100 issued w ith this amendment is the correct version.

All other terms and conditions w ill remain the same.

Contracting POC:

Sharla Andrew s Phone: (410)962-2708 Email: sharla.r.andrew s@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Dec-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-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Nov-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 1 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

02-Dec-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-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This request for proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for the Boundary Channel Drive Vehicle Access Control Point (ACP) at the Pentagon Reservation in Arlington, VA. This is Phase I of a two-phase RFP. This RFP is requesting submission of proposals under phase one submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating phase one proposals, the contracting officer will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit proposals for phase two. The maximum number of Offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed five (5). Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase II submission criteria at this time. Phase II of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those Offerors selected for Phase II. Submitting any information under Phase II criteria may lead to disqualification of your proposal. This is Total Small Business set-aside competitive RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this Section 00100.

The work includes but is not limited to, new site features and traffic patterns required for turnkey operation of the facility and operations. The work requires the modification of the existing site to allow screening of vehicles and pedestrians to the Pentagon Reservation. Those modifications include, but are not limited to, vehicular approach and reject lanes transitioning/connecting to the existing bridge/ramp, the existing access and exit lanes, and related signage. The work is also to include a fully suited gate house, police booth, canopy, support building with electrical/ITA distribution equipment, mechanical infrastructure, electrical infrastructure, communication infrastructure, and a variable load bank for existing Mall V e h i c l e A c c e s s C o n t r o l P o i n t ( V A C P ) engine-generator set. Fencing, walkways, screening and detection equipment and technologies that serve as force multipliers for the Pentagon Reservation’s Force protection efforts are all included as part of this project.

Furthermore, the required work includes routing of utilities and equipment located in a new equipment support building to the gate house, police booth, existing remote utility sources, an ID check area, security equipment, and the definition of roadway geometry. The work includes integrating green infrastructure features such as bioretention and permeable pavers to meet or exceed stormwater management requirements.

The security equipment replacement at this post include, but are not limited to, passive barriers, active vehicle barriers, fencing, gate arms, Access Control and Intrusion Detection systems, Video Intercom System, vehicle screening systems, Public Address System, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system, telecommunication network connectivity, and storage, as well as the addition of a vehicular double swing gate and an adjoining pedestrian swing gate capable of closing the VACP against pedestrians attempting unauthorized access.

The required design and construction shall be provided to suit the existing site conditions. Significant pedestrian and traffic conditions are also inherit features of the access point.

1.2. Basis For Award: This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a firm-fixed-price construction contract. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below:

PHASE I

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Approach

PHASE II

Factor 3 - Technical Approach Factor 4 - Price

Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors.

For Phase I, Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

For Phase II, Factor 3 will be adjectivally rated; however, Factors 1 and 2 from Phase I will also be considered as part of the trade-off evaluation. Factors 1 through 3 are of equal importance and when combined, are more important than Factor 4 (Price).

It is the intent of the Government to seek proposals from qualified Offerors with experience in the significant features of this RFP and who can demonstrate a successful performance history in completing relevant projects. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Trade-Off Process. The successful Offeror will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government”.

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

a. Phase I: Volume I – Technical Proposal, Part 1 (Factors 1-2), (original and four copies)

b. Phase I: Volume II – Administrative Documents (original, no copies)

c. Electronic Requirement 1- In addition to the written binder requirement in block 13A of the SF1442, all

Offerors must provide an electronic copy of their technical proposal and administrative package in .pdf format on a compact disc(s) (CD) (Shall be one file that is an exact color copy of the hard, original proposal).

*NOTE: Electronic copy will be used solely for administrative purposes. Hard copies will be used for evaluation and takes precedence in the case of any discrepancies between hard copy and electronic copies.

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

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

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

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

The total number of pages must not exceed 30 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing in Factor 1 behind tab for

2.1.2. relating to past performance evaluations and awards, are not counted in the overall page limitation. Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 30 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count).

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

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

b. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

c. Section 00600;

Those Offerors selected for Phase II will have to resign the SF1442.

1.5. Proposal envelopes shall be marked with the Offeror’s name, Solicitation Number, and the solicitation Closing Time and Date. (See SF1442 Block 1 and Block 13)

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

2. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, PART 1 - FACTORS 1-2)

For purposes of this solicitation, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

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

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

2. Describe the nature of each entity’s relationship (partnership, joint venture, prime/sub or mentor/protégé) and their role on this project as a part of their proposal. The Offeror will be expected to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this solicitation.

3. The estimated percentage of work to be completed by each member submitted for the solicitation.

This can be a rough order of magnitude for Phase I; however, this agreement/letter must be resubmitted with Phase II to include that actual proposed percentages.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g. roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

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

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the

Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this solicitation, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror”.

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

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

In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

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

In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protege is a Small and Large business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

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

The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects that have a Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) within the same date range will also be considered. Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) is the point at which the customer determines the facility or area can be occupied from both a regulatory and work function standpoint. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided below entitled “EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” (Attachment A). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposal and should be in the same format as the form.

As requested on the form, the Offeror must provide an explanation of how the Offeror managed and controlled the submitted projects. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

*Note: In reference to Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: Task orders on ID/IQ contracts can also be submitted under Factor 1; however, each task order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor and section 2 above. Submissions of multiple task orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

2.1.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on no more than five (5) completed design-build projects. At least one project must demonstrate experience from the proposed designer. Submitted projects must be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $3,000,000 considering adjustment for escalation from project completion to 2015, completion no earlier than six (6) years (preceding the original date of issuance of this RFP) and address the discussions requested on the attachment while meeting the teaming requirements in section 2 above.

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

Relevant Projects must include at least three (3) or more of the following elements:

Security Fencing and Entrance Gates Gate house/Police Booth Overwatch Area Installation of Related Security Systems, Passive/Active Vehicle Barriers Vehicle Inspection Areas/Rejection Lanes Entry and Exit Road Intersection Tie-Ins Identification (ID) Check Area with Canopy American Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Pedestrian Turnstiles Maintaining function of an access control point during construction/renovation HVAC System and Commissioning Ballistic resistant doors and windows Electronic Security System (card readers, intrusion detection system, CCTV system, etc.)

Street Lighting/Security Lighting Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) measures (Passive Barriers, K12 Bollards, Knee Walls and

Ballistic Resistant NIJ Level III Windows, Doors and Hardware) Bioretention areas Permeable pavement to include permeable pavers or permeable asphalt (not permeable concrete) Prior experience at the Pentagon Reservation

For projects demonstrating past experience from the designer, one hundred percent (100%) of the design and at least seventy five percent (75%) of the construction of each project must be completed at the time of proposal submission.

For projects demonstrating past experience for the construction contractor, one hundred percent (100%) of the construction must be complete.

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

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

2.1.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: Formal performance evaluations shall be provided on the projects submitted in response to Section 2.1.1 above. The Offeror must request that their client complete the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for Relevant Experience (Form PPQ-0) (Attachment B) and submit the questionnaire as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the Offeror must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated project and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date. Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

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

Previously completed PPQ-0s may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other solicitations. Submitted PPQ-0s must only reference this solicitation. Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings will not be accepted in lieu of PPQ-0s.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The information obtained from these sources will be evaluated supplementary to the past performance questionnaires. In reference to the contracts pulled from these sources, the relevancy of the projects, completion dates, ratings and comments in the individual categories and overall ratings will be considered in making the overall confidence assessment.

The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror (Copies of awards must be included under this factor for validation.). Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the past performance confidence rating will be considered unknown/neutral confidence.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation.

It is the intent of the Government to receive proposals that clearly define and demonstrate the Offerors’ response to this factor with regard to the requested information, and considering the project information provided in Section 1.1, while also providing the rationale for the selection of this approach to the solicited project.

All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate management capability.

2.2.1. Management History: The Offeror shall identify no more than three (3) of the projects from Factor 1 it believes are most relevant to the solicited project to be considered for this factor. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor. The Offeror shall, provide a description of the management approach used on the identified projects;

identify any challenges encountered and how they were mitigated; and identify any lessons learned.

2.2.2. Project Management: The Offeror shall provide its proposed management approach for the solicited project which meets the solicitation requirements and incorporates the lessons learned from the challenges identified in

2.2.1. This narrative shall be provided in a manner for those unfamiliar with the Offeror to be able to comprehend its management approach for the solicited project and include at a minimum but not limited to, How lessons learned (identified in 2.2.1.) will be applied to the solicited project;

Construction approaches;

Customer coordination;

Schedule management;

Steps to be taken to minimize the impact of critical items, changes, etc.; and Staffing.

In the case of an Offeror that is utilizing an affiliate as a member of the team, the management approach must clearly define how the affiliate will contribute to the success of the project.

3. VOLUME I - EVALUATION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, PART 1 – FACTORS 1-2)

3.1. FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraph 2.1 above. Validation of Offeror performance may occur through contacting the client POC provided by the Offeror on the first page of the PPQ and various government and commercial resources.

Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government. That is, projects that are considered to be non-relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, completion within six (6) years, responses to the Attachment A, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 2 (submitted under Factor 1) and demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the work. More relevant projects and high past performance evaluations will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Higher confidence assessments will be given for higher past performance evaluation ratings.

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

3.2. FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is a project specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 2.2 in sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraph 2.2.1 which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

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

4.2. Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1-2) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below.

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors. Factors 1 through 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 through 2 are of equal importance.

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Approach

See section 3 above for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

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

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

VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNKNOWN/NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE – No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

OUTSTANDING: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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

4.4. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offeror submitted the proposal that represents the best value to the Government for this project. The SSA will compare the proposals to determine the offer(s) that represent(s) the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. The selection process is complex and depending upon the evaluation factors, the SSA may exercise a significant degree of judgment in selecting the successful Offeror(s). The adjectival ratings assigned by the evaluation team are labels and not the sole basis for proposal comparison. The SSA will not base his/her decision merely on the adjectival ratings or the comparative analysis and award recommendations, which compares the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals, but shall exercise independent judgment.

4.5. Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that an award 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. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Competitive range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal.

The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the competitive range.

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

5. PHASE II:

5.1. Phase II of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those Offerors selected for Phase II.

Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that make a determination for inclusion in Phase II evaluations without communications based on responses to Factors 1 and 2. Therefore, Phase 1 proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

PHASE II FACTORS: Phase II proposals will be evaluated based upon the design-build factors identified below.

Factor 3 be adjectivally rated and Factor 4 will be evaluated. All technical evaluation factors are considered approximately equal to each other and, when combined, are more important than to price. Factors in phase two will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 4 - PRICE (INCLUDING BID GUARANTEE)

If the Offeror cannot provide a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR 52.228-1, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered valid for this solicitation.

For Phase II, Factor 3 will be adjectivally rated; however, Factors 1 and 2 from Phase I will also be considered as part of the trade-off evaluation. Factors 1 through 3 are of equal importance and when combined, are more important than Factor 4 (Price).

6. SUBMISSION DEFINITIONS

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

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

Building Gross Square Foot (BGSF) is the floor area of the entire building or project, which includes floor area occupied by rooms/spaces, walls, corridors, conveyances, mechanical/utility rooms, and shafts.

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

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

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

Contract Completion is determined to be when all the requirements of a contract are complete including Construction, testing, commissioning, documentation and transfer, and completed forms including claims release documentation.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

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

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

Rating is the evaluators’ conclusions (supported by narrative write-ups) identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of an evaluation factor. The ratings for the Technical Factors will be expressed as an adjective. The “rating” is simply the adjective itself. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade-off Process permits trade-offs among non-cost factors. The trade-off process, or tradeoff analysis, considers each proposal’s discriminators in the non-cost ratings as indicated by each proposal's strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The differences in light of the relative importance of each evaluation factor of the competing Offeror to determine which proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government. Trade-off analysis is a subjective process in that it requires the SSA to exercise reasonable business judgment.

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

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

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

a. Experience in Relevant Projects

b. Past Performance Questionnaire

ATTACHMENT A

EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

<<Picture>>

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

Project Name:

Project Location:

City, State

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

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

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

Explanation of Management and Control of Project: Must provide a detailed explanation of the Offeror’s role and approach to how this project was managed and controlled from project start to project completion.

Percentage of Work and Trades Self-Performed:

Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons learned:

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

Design Percent Complete: Construction Percent Complete:

Cost Original Project Cost:

Final Project Cost:

Cost Difference

*Original Subcontractor Cost:

*Final Subcontractor Cost:

*Cost Difference

Cost and Time Growth Discussion: Reason(s) for differences between original and final schedule or costs. This section can be excluded if not applicable to the project. Response should contain more detail than “Owner requested/initiated changes”. Provide examples to support growth.

*Only to be completed if the experience was performed as a subcontractor on the submitted project.

OFFERORS MAY INCREASE SPACING IN FORM AS NECESSARY.

ATTACHMENT B

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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: 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…