W912DR18R0008_WAD_SATOC.pdf

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Single Aw ard Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Construction in support of the Washington Aqueduct. The contract capacity is $8,000,000.

Competition w ill be limited to 8(a) certif ied f irms w ho have off ices w ithin SBA’s Region III w hich includes Delaw are, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., Virginia, and West Virginia.

NAICS CODE: 238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors Size Standard: $15,000,000

BRIAN L RICHARDSON 410-962-2711

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

24-Apr-2018

(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 ________1825 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 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 __________4 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________24 May 2018 (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 _______180 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

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

ROOM 03-G-01

BALTIMORE MD 21201

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: 410-962-2196 TEL: FAX:

W912DR18R0008 73

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

W912DR18R0008

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (SATOC)

FFP

This is a five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for electrical mission requirements. The total capacity is $8,000,000.

FOB: Destination

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from qualified 8(a) firms interested in being selected for a competitive Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Washington Aqueduct. This acquisition will result in the award of a five (5) year contract with an $8,000,000 capacity and will be limited to firms who have offices within Region III which includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Virginia, and West Virginia.

This is Phase I of a two-phase solicitation. This solicitation is requesting submission of proposals under Phase I submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the contracting officer will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit Phase II proposals. The Government intends to advance up to (5) five offerors to Phase II. Offerors responding to this solicitation are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained herein. Failure to submit all items detailed in section 1.3 will result in a non-responsive determination and the proposal will not be forwarded for technical evaluation.

The work to be performed under this contract includes engineering and construction services for the repair or upgrade of electrical equipment within a complex water treatment plant that consists of, but not limited to, typical elements for repairs, rehabilitation, modification, upgrades and renovations of electrical systems in an industrial environment. Typical work may include but is not limited to repair and renovation of existing facilities of the following types: industrial, power distribution, pumping stations, water treatment process equipment, office and electrical infrastructure such as motors, variable frequency drives, circuit breakers, switchgears, power protection relays, etc. Representative work examples may include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) improvements, power protection system upgrades, electrical distribution service improvements, electrical studies, arc flash safety assessments, coordination studies, generator upgrades, medium to low voltage distribution equipment upgrades, industrial electrical equipment maintenance and replacement, etc. Work may also include construction of new facilities. Representative work examples may include installation of new generators, variable frequency drives, motor control centers, transformers, etc. Work may be associated with both non-military and military construction.

The effort required under this contract will be performed within the boundaries of the Washington Aqueduct facilities.

1.2. Source Selection: It is the intent of the Government to seek proposals from qualified 8(a) Offerors with experience in the significant features of this solicitation and who can demonstrate a successful performance history in completing relevant projects. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Trade-Off Process. The successful Offerors will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government”.

The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below:

PHASE I

Factor 1 - Experience in Relevant Projects Factor 2 - Management Approach Factor 3 - Past Performance

PHASE II

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

Factors are listed in descending order of importance with factor 4 being significantly more important than all other non-price factors: Factors 4, 1, 5, 2, 3. When combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than factor 6 (price). Evaluations for Phase I factors will carry over to Phase II and be considered as part of the tradeoff evaluation.

1.3. For Phase I each Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes:

a. Volume I – Technical Proposal, (Factors 1 through 3), (original and four copies)

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

Electronic Requirement - In addition to the written binder requirement in block 13A of the SF1442, all Offerors must provide one electronic copy of their proposal in searchable .pdf format on a compact disc (CD).

Failure to submit the correct number of copies will result in rejection of the proposal prior to evaluation.

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

1.4. Specific Requirements: An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing in response to this solicitation. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal. Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. The Offeror’s name, solicitation number and solicitation Closing Time and Date must be affixed to the outside of each volume and CD. Each volume must have a table of contents. Each volume’s contents must be separated by tabs as discussed below. The proposals must be in an 8-1/2” x 11” format (except for the organization chart for which a folded 11” x 17” format may be used). 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) (Factors 1 through 3): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 2, below. The information must be divided by tabs and shall be organized as follows:

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Experience in Relevant Projects TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Approach TAB 3 - Factor 3 Past Performance

The total number of pages must not exceed 40 pages in the aggregate. Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 40 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count). The data appearing in Factor 3, behind the tab for Past Performance Questionnaires For Experience In Relevant Projects, relating to past performance evaluations and awards, are not counted in the overall page limitation and do not require page numbers.

1.4.2. Volume II (Administrative Documents): The Administrative Documents must contain the following:

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

b. Section 00 50 00 – Contracting Forms and Supplements;

i. Certificate of Corporate Authority

ii. Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Location

iii. Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) – If required

c. Provide current single and aggregate bonding capability.

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

1.5. Volume II shall be marked with 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, 2 Hopkins Plaza, Room 00-A-26, 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 deadlines will not be evaluated.

2. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, FACTORS 1 through 3)

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:

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

b. Identify 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.

c. Identify proposed percentage of work to be completed by each member submitted for the 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.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal (Volume I), 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 and/or Mentor/Protégé is an 8(a) and other than small business, the 8(a) will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

2.1. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs, to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original solicitation issuance date. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the same date range will also be considered. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled “EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” (Attachment A). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposals, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposals and shall be in the same format as the form. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment A.

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. Indicate whether each task order is from a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) or Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC). Submissions of multiple task orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

2.1.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on no more than ten (10) completed projects, the additional project(s) will not be evaluated. Each project must comply with the teaming agreement requirements in paragraph 2, the date requirements in paragraph 2.1, be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $500,000 considering adjustment for escalation from project completion to 2018. All escalation values are to be labeled as escalated and the Offeror must explain in detail their escalation rationale, which must include any formulas, calculations, assumptions, etc.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, mentor/protégé or utilizes an affiliate between an 8(a) and other than small business, at least one project submitted within this factor MUST be experience representing the 8(a)/protégé Prime Offeror.

At least three (3) projects must clearly demonstrate the Prime Offeror’s experience as a Prime.

Similar contracts may include construction projects in a variety of sizes, a variety of construction disciplines, varying degrees of technical complexity and both design-build and design-bid-build projects.

Each project must clearly be labeled as Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build and new construction or renovation.

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

• Projects with detailed phasing, sequencing and staging requirements to maintain full operation of existing facilities during construction

• Experience working on with both non-military and military construction.

• Modification or upgrade of electrical equipment within a complex water treatment plants or other operations.

• Rehabilitation, modification, upgrades and renovations of electrical systems in an industrial, commercial or institutional environment such as pumping stations, water/wastewater treatment, electric utilities, hospitals and universities for work on motors, variable frequency drives, circuit breakers, switchgears, power protection relays, etc.

• Integrating electrical power systems with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems.

Projects involving power protection system upgrades, electrical distribution service improvements, electrical studies, arc flash safety assessments, coordination studies, generator upgrades, medium to low voltage distribution equipment upgrades, industrial electrical equipment maintenance and replacement, etc.

• Demolition, construction and retrofit of electrical systems

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

Lists, charts/matrices and bullets will not be accepted when indicated relevant elements. Each element must have a description of how it meets the requirement (ex. AT/FP – For this project, regulation stand-off distances were used, bollards were installed, blast resistant windows were installed, 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.

2.2. FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The intent of this factor is for the Offeror to describe their management approach to this SATOC. The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each paragraph, to facilitate evaluation.

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, while also providing the rationale for the selection of this approach to the solicited contract.

All narratives must be responses specific to the solicitation requirements (boilerplates and company histories/summaries will not be accepted) and contain sufficient detail to demonstrate management capability.

Offerors are encouraged to provide a discussion within this section on how the past experience/performance of individual team members on similar projects will increase the success on the solicited SATOC.

2.2.1. Contract/Task Order Management:

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

• The Offeror shall include discussions on how the home office staff will support the overall contract management. Discussion shall include management aspects specific to the solicited work, such as the roles and responsibilities of small business and any affiliate team members, the dedicated management staff assigned to this contract (i.e. Project Manager, Project Executive, Superintendent, etc.).

• The Offeror shall address how they will approach the management, schedule and resourcing of multiple, concurrent projects/task orders in different locations.

• The Offeror shall provide a narrative on the individual team members required for every task order both at the home office and onsite levels; and how these team members will be leveraged across the contract.

• The Offeror shall address management of individual task orders.

• The Offeror shall discuss cost savings techniques the firm would utilize when managing multiple task orders at a single installation. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this approach was a success and how this approach will benefit the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

• The Offeror shall include how it plans to coordinate and select subcontractors throughout the Baltimore District area of responsibility.

• The Offeror shall describe how the project teams, to include the subcontractors and the Government, will communicate with each other to achieve results.

• The Offeror shall identify trades typically self-performed.

• In considering design-build task orders, the Offeror shall discuss the start to finish process to include the

Offeror’s role and involvement. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this process was a success and how this process will benefit the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

• The Offeror shall discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process.

• As most projects may require quick turnaround, the Offeror shall describe how the Offeror would streamline the process of receipt of task order requirements to award. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this process was a success and how this will be a benefit to the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

2.2.2 Contract/Task Order Team:

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

• The Offeror’s key personnel that will manage the SATOC.

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

2.3. FACTOR 3 – 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. 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-0 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-0 (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 Performance 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.

3. PHASE I; VOLUME I - EVALUATION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, Factors 1 through 3)

3.1. FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.1.1 above as well as required on Attachment A.

3.2. FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this solicitation if the narrative contains contract specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraph

2.3 in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of and practical approach to managing the SATOC and the task orders under it. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

3.3. FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements, as stated in paragraph 2.2 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 submitted for projects that have met the minimum requirements of Factor 1 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 and/or not 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.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1. Proposal Compliance Review: The proposal compliance review will ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical proposals have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose per the solicitations 8(a) set aside. An Offeror’s failure to provide all of the requested information may adversely affect the evaluation or result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.

4.2. Phase I; Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1 through 3) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Factors 1 through 3 will be adjectivally rated Factors 1 through 3 are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1 - Experience in Relevant Projects Factor 2 - Management Approach Factor 3 - Past Performance

See Sections for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

Past Performance Ratings: There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation, Relevancy and Confidence.

The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance to determine how relevant their submitted projects are to the Government’s proposed requirements. The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine confidence through evaluating how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Past Performance will be evaluated by examining the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.3. 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 3:

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.

The following ratings will be used to identify the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s Past Performance.

These ratings will be influenced by the relevancy ratings, above, as well as any Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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.

The following ratings will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 1 and 2 (Experience in Relevant Projects and 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 conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) evaluations against the solicitation to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation. The SSEB may review any proposal, but does not compare one proposal against another.

The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the SSA with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival ratings for each factor and their supporting rationale, brief the SSA and prepare any necessary items for analysis.

4.4. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider Factors 1, 2 and 3 to select the most highly qualified Offerors (up to five) to submit proposals for Phase II. Those moving forward will be contacted with further information related to the Phase II submission requirements.

Offerors with a rating of unacceptable for any factor will not be considered for award.

4.5. Communications with Offerors prior to Phase II: The Government intends to down-select the Phase II Offerors without further communication with the Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to communicate with Offerors if it is deemed necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If communications are necessary, the Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

5. PHASE II:

5.1. The Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals advancing to Phase II evaluations to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals; up to five (5) Offerors.

PHASE II FACTORS: Phase II proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors identified below. The evaluation ratings for Factors 1 through 3 will carry over to Phase II. Factors 4 and 5 will be adjectivally rated and Factor 6 will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation Committee. Factors in Phase II will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

FACTOR 4 - SEED PROJECT - TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 5 - SEED PROJECT - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

FACTOR 6 - 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, Factors are listed in descending order of importance with factor 4 being significantly more important than all other non-price factors: Factors 4, 1, 5, 2, 3. When combined all non-price factors are significantly more important than factor 6 (price). Evaluations for Phase I factors will carry over to Phase II and be considered as part of the tradeoff evaluation.

6.0. SUBMISSION DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals.

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

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

FAR 15.001.

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

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the procuring contracting officer’s (PCO) written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Formal source selection means the source selection process used where someone other than the procuring contracting officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA), normally for high dollar value or complex acquisitions.

Minor or Clerical Error is a minor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

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

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

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

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the solicitation that convey the needs of the Government to Offerors, including the SOO, SOW, Performance Work Statement (PWS), technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the solicitation that communicate those requirements to Offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_303

Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

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

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

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSEB, Advisors, Cost/Price Experts, Legal Counsel and other subject-matter experts.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

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

TEC is the Technical Evaluation Committee and is responsible for independent analysis of Technical Proposals compared to solicitation requirements.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The trade-off process, or tradeoff analysis, considers each proposal’s total evaluated price and the discriminators in the non-cost ratings as indicated by each proposal's strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The differences in light of the relative importance of each evaluation factor of the competing Offeror to determine which proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government and thus shall receive contract award. Trade-off analysis is a subjective process in that it requires the SSA to exercise reasonable business judgment.

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

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

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

a. Experience in Relevant Projects

b. Past Performance Questionnaire

PHASE I - ATTACHMENT A | EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

<<Picture>>

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

Project Name:

Project Location:

City, State

Task Order on MATOC or SATOC:

Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build:

New Construction or Renovation:

Agency/Government Contracting Activity: Point of contact information (address, PCO name, email address and phone number) If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

Agency/Government Technical Rep. /COR: Point of contact information (email address and phone number). If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number)

Project Description: General scope. 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.

Description of the actual work performed by the contractor submitting this project:

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

Explanation of 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.

Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons learned:

BGSF: Lost Time Accidents:

Schedule:

Start Date: Original Completion: Final Contract

Completion:

Beneficial Occupancy Date:

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…