I.B.08.03_-_W912DR-19-R-0012_Amendment_1_(Phase_I_RFI's)_4.3.2019.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

Solicitation No. W912DR-19-R-0012 (Phase I)

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er RFI's for Phase I. All changes noted in the RFI answ ers are identified in red. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Contracting POC: Tamara Bonomolo, tamara.c.bonomolo@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Apr-2019

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 W912DR19R0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-2019

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

03-Apr-2019

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

03-G-04

BALTIMORE MD 21201

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR19R0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The number of offeror copies required has increased by 3 from 1 to 4.

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING THIS ACQUISITION

1. PROPOSAL CONDITIONS

a. Contractors must bid all items in the Phase II bid schedule, with no exceptions. Should a contractor fail to fully complete the bid schedule, its offer will not be considered responsive to the solicitation and ineligible for the resultant contract award.

b. Split awards or multiple award contracts will not result from this solicitation.

2. COMPETITION: Full and Open Competition.

3. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

a. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Block 13 of Page 1 of this Solicitation document. PROPOSALS OR MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSALS THAT ARE RECEIVED

BY FACSIMILE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

b. Hand Carried and Mailed Proposal: It is the responsibility of each offeror to ensure that its proposal is received by the Baltimore District’s Contracting Branch, located at 2 Hopkins Plaza, ATTN: Tamara Bonomolo, Floor 00-A-267, Baltimore, MD 21201 prior to the date and time set for the receipt of the proposals – See Block 13A of Page 1 of the Solicitation.

c. SF 1442 BACK (Page 2 of the Solicitation): Offerors are required to acknowledge the receipt of all amendments to the Solicitation on the Standard Form 1442 in Block 19. Offerors shall fully complete all the required areas located under the section designated as “OFFER” (refer to Items 14 through 20C).

d. BID GUARANTEE: The offerors are required to submit a Bid Guarantee for this procurement during Phase II submissions. Any offeror failing to submit an authentic Bid Guarantee will be considered non-responsive to the Solicitation and ineligible for award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20% of the bidder’s price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less.

e. BONDS AND INSURANCE: The Contractor will be required to furnish proof of insurance, including copies of the required endorsements, and performance and payment bonds within ten (10) calendar days following the Contractor’s receipt of the contract award.

4. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) No Later Than (NLT) 11:00 A.M. (EST), 29 MARCH 2019. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective vendor once the reply is available for viewing.

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: QA94WZ-PF4H38

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

PLEASE NOTE: THE LAST DAY FOR INTERESTED BIDDERS TO SUBMIT THEIR CONTRACTING

AND TECHNICAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION IN PROJNET IS 29 MARCH 2019 AT 11:00 AM

(EST). NO OTHER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 11:00 AM (EST).

*** NOTE: QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PROJNET ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL AN AMENDMENT IS

ISSUED. ***

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I - PROPOSAL PROVISIONS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This request for proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for design-build construction of Gravity Axis at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this section.

This is Phase I of a Two-Phase RFP issued in accordance with FAR Subpart 36.3. This RFP 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 proposals for Phase II. It is the Government’s intention to advance up to five of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase I to Phase II.

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 a Full and Open (Unrestricted) competitive RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this section.

The work is summarized as follows: The contract will include design and construction of a new 44,000 GSF warehouse facility that will be comprised of warehouse space, administrative space, a warehouse vault, hazardous material storage, loading docks, restrooms, break room, and mechanical and electrical, secure and unsecure telecommunication spaces. The facility is to be located at the current location of the Support Activity Building 3 (SAB3) on Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. To facilitate construction, the SAB3 facility which is approximately 101,857 GSF will have to be demolished in its entirety. Also, there are existing buried tapes within the general footprint and will have to be removed and turned over to the customer’s security team prior to construction.

Additionally, the primary facility will be constructed as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and will include core and shell structure and foundations; electrical/mechanical service and distribution components and systems; fire protection, alarm, and suppression; information technology, communications, and security systems support infrastructure; exterior finishes and weatherproofing. Interior build out will provide structural raised access floor systems, ceiling, recessed lighting, fire rated interior partitions, storage and manufacturing space.

Supporting Facilities include site preparation and infrastructure improvements, utility services and distribution systems and demolition of existing facilities and site features. Site preparation work will include standard clearing, grubbing, cut, fill, and grading, storm water management in accordance with Maryland environmental site design, and environmental remediation measures.

This project shall be designed in accordance with the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) design standards, Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) standards, latest Facilities Criteria (FC), and the NSAW 2015 Installation Design Guidelines (IDG), DODD 5134.08, DOD 5200.08-R Physical Security Program.

1.2. Basis for Award: This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a firm-fixed-price design-build contract. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government in Phase I and II. 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. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below.

PHASE I

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

PHASE II

Factor 3 - Technical/Design Solution Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5 - 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, Factors 3 and 4 will be adjectivally rated. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4 and when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 5 (Price).

1.3. Source Selection: It is 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”. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted.

Where the technical merits of competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

1.4. Each Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes (binders):

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 proposals in .pdf format on a compact disc(s) (CD) for each Phase. (The electronic copy 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 1.5, below.

1.5. 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 and a Cover Sheet to include the Offeror’s CAGE Code, address, NAICS and business size in accordance with the System for Award Management (SAM) and Point of Contact information, such as email and phone number. 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.

1.5.1. Volume I (Technical Proposal) (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 and Experience in Relevant Projects

TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Approach

The total number of pages must not exceed 40 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing in Factor 1 behind the tab for 2.2.2 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 40 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count).

1.5.2. 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 00 45 00;

d. Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

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

1.6. 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)

1.7. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2 Hopkins Plaza, ATTN: Tamara Bonomolo, Rm 00-A-267, 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. SUBMISSION CRITERIA

2.1. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, 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:

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

b. 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.

c. 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.

2.2. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE IN RELAVENT PROJECTS: 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 within the past five (5) years. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the past five (5) years 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. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

2.2.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects completed within the past five (5) years. For ongoing projects, either Design- Build or Design-Bid-Build, 100% of the design and approximately 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed by the date the Phase I solicitation is issued. These projects must be of relevant scope and complexity and have either a minimum project size of 40,000 Building Gross Square Foot (BGSF) OR demonstrate a minimum completion value of $20,000,000.00 and address the discussions requested on Attachment A while meeting the teaming agreement requirements in section 2.1 above.

If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of five completed projects, the first 5 projects submitted will be evaluated only, while the remaining additional project(s) will not be evaluated.

Relevant projects must include the following elements:

At least 1 project to serve as example of performance by the Offeror as a Prime Contractor.

At least 1 project that is Design-Build Contract delivery method.

At least 1 project that has design and/or construction in accordance with Intelligence Community

Directive 705 (ICD 705) or Director of Central Intelligence Directive 6/9 (DCID6/9) At least 1 project demonstrating LEED certification (silver or higher), NetZero certification, ASHRAE

189.1 compliance or other green building/sustainable certification At least 1 project demonstrating constrained construction environment (e.g., close proximity to active major construction; limited laydown areas).

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. If projects submitted have comparable scope to this solicitation including warehouse construction experience, full building demolition experience, and working within secure facilities (e.g., restricted site access, vetting of employees, clear background checks, security coordination/escorting) it may demonstrate a potential increase ability of successful contract performance. If projects do not address the above minimum requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

2.2.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: Formal performance evaluations shall be provided on the relevant projects submitted in response to Section 2.2.1.

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 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 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), Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal;

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 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).)

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.

2.3. 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 A, 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.

2.3.1. Overall Corporate Management Structure (Approach): Describe the overall corporate management structure of the Offeror’s design-build team. If the Offeror is made up of more than one firm, describe the business relationship, the authorities of the team members, and the delegation of authorities, if any, within the team to include partnering firms and subcontractors. Provide a narrative description of the roles and responsibilities of the key personnel (name/title/firm) identified in Paragraph 2.3.7 and include an organizational chart depicting the hierarchical structure of the team members responsible for project execution.

2.3.2. Workforce and Subcontractor Management Narrative: GRAVITY AXIS warehouse shall be designed and constructed to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) physical and technical security standards. All work performed under this contract, including, but not limited to, design, construction, on-site work, and off-site work, shall be performed by U.S. companies using U.S. citizens. The Offeror must describe the strategies it intends to employ to address these challenges and ensure GRAVITY AXIS program materials are not released to unauthorized personnel or firms.

2.3.3. Design Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the design process. The narrative shall state why the Offeror’s design team is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. The narrative must describe the design team’s approach to working with the customer and the means to integrate its input during the design phase, how it will manage design quality control – track design evolution and coordinate the different design disciplines - during the design process, and how design refinement will be documented and executed after acceptance of Issued for Construction (IFC) design documents.

2.3.4. Construction Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the construction of this project. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of key and/or specialty subcontractors. The narrative must state why the Offeror’s construction team is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. The narrative must also include the Offeror’s approach to working within a constrained and secure site while simultaneously construction projects and customer operations are ongoing within the site.

2.3.5. Design and Construction Integration Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its management approach to integrating the Design and Construction Teams throughout the project until it is completed.

Describe the organization of the on-site design-build team and the duties and responsibilities of each staff member. Include in the narrative the Offeror’s approach to effectively coordinate work between subcontractors to minimize design and construction conflicts.

2.3.6. Scheduling Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of how it plans to schedule both design and construction activities within the period of performance. The Offeror must describe and discuss its plan to sequence and manage key activities such as design, demolition, permitting, procurement, construction, and project close-out. The Offeror shall clearly articulate any assumption made in its plan to sequence and mange key activities and any constraints that may be levied on the proposed schedule. The Offeror shall include a risk management plan that identifies major risk to the proposed schedule and proposed mitigations.

2.3.7. Key Personnel: Offerors shall provide resumes for the Offeror’s proposed organization’s key personnel;

including team members, which demonstrate the qualifications necessary for this project. Submit five (5) required key disciplines to demonstrate and highlight the strength and expertise of the team. Resumes shall be limited to two (2) pages and any resume exceeding 2 pages will only have the first two pages evaluated. The required key discipline resumes are listed below

Project Executive/Principal Prime Contractor’s Project Manager Construction Superintendent Lead (Design Team) Architect Overall Design Manager

Provide the following information in each resume:

Proposed role on this project

Relevant education (Degrees)

Professional registrations

Certifications, professional positions or other relevant professional qualifications/training

Years of professional experience

Years of experience with current firm

Years of experience in proposed role

Level of current Security Clearance

Additionally, resumes shall describe individual experience on specific projects that are similar to the project in this RFP. Include the following information:

Project name, location, beginning and completion date, and final contract cost.

The individual’s role on the project in enough detail to demonstrate level of involvement.

Provide a brief project description to demonstrate the project is similar to the criteria in Factor 1.

Provide a matrix to include all key disciplines submitted using the attached template in Attachment C.

Indicate if the person filling the key discipline worked on any of the projects submitted in Factor 1, as well as their role and the duration of their role. Ensure that the information provided in the matrix is validated/verified within the key discipline resumes.

Key Personnel must include the following elements:

1) Worked on at least one Factor 1 or similar project.

2) At least 3 years’ experience in the same role as that proposed for this RFP.

3) At least 5 years’ relevant professional experience.

The following are contract requirements and if not met, the proposal will be considered a failure to meet the Government requirements:

1) Professional registration is required for all proposed Architects and Engineers identified as “Lead” or

“Designers’ of Record (DOR)” as required by ER 1110-1-8152.

2) All personnel must be U.S. Citizen

If projects do not address the above elements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1. VOLUME I - EVALUATION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, PHASE I – FACTORS 1-2)

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

3.2. FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: All submissions by

Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for experience in relevant projects, 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 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, percentage completion within five (5) years, responses to the Attachment A, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 2.2.1. (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.

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.”

3.3. 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 paragraphs 2.3. 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 paragraphs 2.3. which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration. If projects do not address the above requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 proposal has been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose. 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, nor will information found in one factor be used in the evaluation of another factor. Factors 1 through 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

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

See section 2 above for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

Past Performance Ratings: There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

Past Performance for Factor 1 (Past Performance) will be evaluated by evaluating the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.2.1., 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:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

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

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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, the past performance questionnaires (PPQ-0) as well as any Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) ratings, Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency listed for and associated with the submitted projects; and any awards received for the submitted projects:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS:

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance report is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has 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.

The following ratings will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 2 (Management Approach):

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

4.3. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct a review of the Technical Team evaluation 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, including the prices for each Offeror (in phase II); brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion.

4.4. Phase I Down Select: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors submitted the proposal that represents the best value to the Government for this project. The SSA will compare the proposals to determine the offers that represent 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 Offerors. 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 recommendations, which compares the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals, but shall exercise independent judgment. It is the Government’s intention to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase I to Phase II.

4.5. 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 to make a determination for inclusion in Phase II evaluations without communications based on responses to Factors 1 and 2. Therefore, Phase I 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.

Factors 3 and 4 will be adjectivally rated and Factor 5 will be evaluated. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4 and when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 5 (Price). Factors in phase two will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.

Factor 3 - Technical/Design Solution Factor 4- Small Business Participation Plan

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 5 - Price

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 3 and 4 will be adjectivally rated. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4 and when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 5 (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.

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.

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.

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).

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 exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

See FAR 15.306(d).

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 adjective descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort,…