W912DR19R0016-0001.pdf

W912DR19R0016

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

The purpose of this amendment is to make the highlighted changes to the Phase 1 Proposal Submission Requirements and respond to the Request for Information (RFI). The Phase I Proposal Submission due date has changed from 11:00AM EST on 21 March 2019 to 2:00PM EST on 21 March 2019. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Mar-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 W912DR19R0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Feb-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 X is extended, 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

08-Mar-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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

PHASE 1 RFI QUESTIONS/RESPONSE

1. The government states that offerors must submit projects with a minimum completion value of $6,000,000 having a construction completion date of within six (6) years preceding the original date of this solicitation. This requirement seems unduly restrictive, considering the fact that this is a very specialized project. Will the government consider accepting relevant projects with a construction completion date of within ten (10) years preceding the original date of this solicitation? Also, will the government consider accepting relevant projects, showing similarities in scope and construction, that are not design-build projects?

Response : Only design-build projects completed in accordance with the submission criteria as indicated in the RFP may be submitted.

2. For the project demonstrating past experience from the Designer, will the Government consider accepting a project that is 100% design complete, but only 50% construction complete at time of proposal submission.

Response: Projects submitted from the designer must be 100% complete with 75% construction completion as indicated in the RFP.

3. Please confirm delivery address for proposal. Section 1.6 lists the Room number as 00-A-26.

Other sections of the proposal lists Room number as 03-G-27 and also 03-G-04.

Response: The room number to mail proposal in is 03-G-27.

4. For the electronic copy, does the Government want both Vol 1 and Vol 2 combined into a single file for the CD?

Response: Vol 1 and Vol 2 can be combined into a single file for the CD.

5. Regarding Section 2.1.1 Experience in relevant projects: For the experience of the proposed Designer only and given the Offeror has demonstrated D-B experience--will the Government consider as a single D-B project the combining of two separate contracts where the proposed designer performed the design of an ACP under one contract and the Offeror performed the construction of the same ACP under a separate contract. Even though not awarded as a D-B, the Offeror interacted with the proposed Designer during contract performance.

Response: Only design-build projects completed in accordance with the RFP will be accepted.

6. Section 2.1.1. Experience in Relevant Projects requires the Offeror to provide projects that have a construction completion date within six years preceding the original date of issuance of the solicitation. Will the government consider increasing this requirement to ten (10) years?

Response : The requirement will remain at six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of the solicitation.

7. Section 2.1.1 Experience in Relevant Projects states that the offeror shall submit at least three (3), but no more than five (5) completed design-build projects. Assuming the contractor submits 3-4 projects that are design-build is it acceptable for the designer to submit one project that is design-bid-build? Allowing the designer to submit design-bid-build projects will allow us to submit our most relevant local work related to security and meet most if not all of the other requirements listed in this section.

Response : All submitted projects must be design-build.

8. RFP Page 12/69, Paragraph 2.1, Factor 1, states: "The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation." This section includes Paragraph 2.1.1 "Experience in Relevant Projects" and Paragraph 2.1.2 "Past Performance Questionnaires for Experience in Relevant Projects." Per Paragraph 2.1, that would mean two tabs for this Factor.

However, RFP page 11 of 69, Paragraph 1.4.1 indicates that tabs shall be organized as follows:

TAB 1 – Factor 1 Past Performance TAB 2 – Factor 2 Prior Project Management

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Please clarify how Offerors should set up tabs.

Response : There is to be a general tab each for Factors 1 and 2. Factor 1 will require subtabs for

2.1.1. and 2.1.2.

9. RFP Page 14/69, Paragraph 2.1.2, Factor 1, includes two references to "Form PPQ-0 (Attachment A)." However, the provided Attachment A is the "Experience in Relevant Projects" form. Please confirm that the references to Attachment A in Paragraph 2.1.2 are typos, and should instead be Attachment B.

Response : Form PPQ-0 is actually Attachment B.

10. RFP page 33 of 69 references three attachments which weren't included with the solicitation:

1. Standard form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Location

2. Certificate of Corporate Authority

3. EFT

Please provide these forms.

Response : Attachments will be available during Phase II.

11. To allow for more travel time to deliver the proposal, would the Government move the submission time from 10:00 AM EST to 2:00 PM EST, or later?

Response: The submission time will be 2:00PM EST.

12. The submission time will be 2:00PM EST

Response : Please report to the security desk and they will contact the Contract Specialist.

13. RFP page 10/69, paragraph 1.4 states that 8.5" x 11" paper shall be used, except for the organization chart which can be on 11" x 17". However, there does not appear to be a requirement for an organization chart as part of this Phase 1 proposal. Please confirm that an org chart is not required for the Phase 1 submission.

Response : An organization chart is not required for Phase I submissions.

14. RFP page 10/69, paragraph 1.4 states that pages must be numbered. Please confirm that the numbering of pages only applies to the Technical Proposal, and not to the items included in the administrative volume (e.g., SF1442).

Response : Both volumes are to be numbered in accordance with the requirements.

15. RFP page 10/69, Paragraph 1.4 requires a table of contents and cover sheet for each volume.

Volume I – Technical Proposal has a 30-page limit. Please confirm that the required cover sheet and table of contents do not count against Volume I's 30-page limit.

Response : The cover sheet and table of contents do not count against the page count.

16. RFP page 11/69, paragraph 2 is titled "Volume I – Minimum Submission Criteria (Technical Proposal Factors 1 through 3)." Please confirm that Volume I only includes Factors 1-2, and that Factor 3 is part of the Phase II submission.

Response : Volume I only includes Factors 1 and 2.

17. Factor 1 requires at least one project to demonstrate experience from the proposed designer.

Please confirm that a letter of commitment meeting the requirements of RFP page 11-12/69, Paragraph 2 (items a-c) will suffice to meet the RFP requirements for establishing a team.

Response : A teaming agreement must be provided for the designer. A letter of commitment is utilized in the case of an affiliate.

18. Section 2.1.2 only references PPQs for performance evaluations. Please confirm that CPAR/CCASS evaluations are acceptable as well.

Response : If the Offeror has the most recent CPAR for any of the submitted projects, it may be submitted.

19. Section 00 50 00 1. States STANDARD FORM LLL is attached after Section 00 73 00, but cannot find. Please provide

Response : Form will be provided during Phase II.

20. Section 00 50 00 1. States Certificate of Corporate Authority Form is attached after Section 00 73 00, but cannot find. Please provide

Response : Form will be provided during Phase II.

21. Section 00 50 00 1. States EFT Form is attached after Section 00 73 00, but cannot find.

Please provide.

Response : Form will be provided during Phase II.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Mar-2019 10:00 AM to 21-Mar-2019 02:00 PM.

The Issued By organization below has been added:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

03-G-04

BALTIMORE MD 21201

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This request for proposal (RFP) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for construction of the North Village Access Control Point (ACP) & Perimeter Fence, Arlington, VA. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this Section 00100. 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 proposals for Phase II. The maximum number of Offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed five (5).

Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase II submission criteria at this time. Phase II of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those Offerors selected for Phase II. Submitting any information under Phase II criteria may lead to disqualification of your proposal. . Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this Section 00 10 00 of this document.

The work includes but is not limited to the design and construction of a combined 985 gsf visitor control building and vehicle access control point. The ACP will allow for vehicular screening under a canopy as well as screening of both employee and visitors. A separate utility building (mechanical/electrical/telecom) will be provided. A canopy will connect the screening building and utility building. The project will also include authentication activities, traffic management, site work, paving and walkways, utility relocation, roadway reconfiguration to allow adequate vehicle queuing, construction phasing, active and passive barriers as well as a perimeter fence. The site/roadway modifications include, but are not limited to, vehicular approach and reject lanes connecting to Boundary Channel Access Road, the existing access and exit lanes, and related signage. The work also requires demolition/removal of the South Basin contents and associated piping, way-finding and signage, and site lighting. Other elements of this project include gate arms, active vehicle barriers, under vehicle screening systems, license plate readers, passive vehicle barriers, paving for access roadways and installation of pedestrian turnstile. Includes installation of security equipment, intrusion detection system, closed circuit television, fire alarm system, information system, backup power, uninterruptible power supply, canopy with foundation, precast limestone veneer exterior, and lighting. Construction must be phased to keep access control point operational.

Other work includes the demolition of the North Village perimeter fence and installation of a crash-rated fence including infrastructure to support lighting and intrusion detection, removal and backfill of the south abandoned waste water basin, demolition of the existing temporary pedestrian access control point and guard post, duct banks for power, telecom, IT, and security, connections for water, sewer utility services, storm drainage with Low Impact Development (LID) measures, concrete walkway, paving, curbs, gutters, exterior lighting, and landscaping. Project includes Anti- Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) features and complies with AT/FP regulations, and physical security mitigation in accordance with DoD Minimum Anti- Terrorism Standards for Buildings. Low Impact Development and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act pollutant reduction features will be included in the design and construction of this project as appropriate.

The effort required under this contract will be performed within the boundaries of the Pentagon Reservation in Arlington County, VA.

The facilities will be designed to meet or exceed the useful service life specified in the DoD Unified Facility Criteria.

The facilities will incorporate features that provide the lowest practical life cycle cost solutions that will satisfy the facility requirements with the end goal of maximizing energy efficiency.

1.2. Basis For Award: This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a firm-fixed-price construction contract. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government utilizing the trade-off process. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA.

While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable/Satisfactory Confidence” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below:

PHASE I

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Prior Project Management

PHASE II

Factor 3 - Technical Approach 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, Factor 3 and 4 will be adjectivally rated; however, Factors 1 and 2 from Phase I will also be considered as part of the tradeoff evaluation. Factors 1 through 4 are of equal importance and when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 (Price).

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

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

a. Volume I – Technical Proposal, (Factors 1 and 2), (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 electronic copies of their proposals in searchable .pdf format on a compact disc (CD). (Shall be one file that is an exact color copy of the hard, original proposal).

Failure to submit the correct number of copies may 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 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 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 and 2): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 2, below. The information must be divided by tabs and shall be organized as follows:

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Past Performance TAB 2 - Factor 2 Prior Project Management

The total number of pages must not exceed 30 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 30 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count). The data appearing in Factor 1 behind the tab for 2.1.2. 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 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. 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. Proposal envelopes 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, Attn: Robert Jackson, 2 Hopkins Plaza, Room 03-G-27 Baltimore, MD 21201, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1442, Block

13. Offeror’s proposals received after the required time and date deadlines will not be evaluated.

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

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

2.1.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS:

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.

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 must have completed at least fifty percent (50%) of the total number of projects that meet the requirements for Factor 1 for consideration in response to the experience requirements of this solicitation.

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

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

The Offeror shall submit at least three (3), but no more than five (5) completed design-build projects. If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation, the additional project(s) will not be evaluated. These projects must be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $6,000,000.00 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.) and address the discussions requested on Attachment A while meeting the teaming agreement requirements in section 2 above. The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under this factor. All projects must have a construction completion date within six

(6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects that have a Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) within the same date range will also be considered.

*Note: In reference to Task Order Construction Contracts (TOCCs)/Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: Task orders/delivery orders on TOCCs and/or ID/IQ contracts can also be submitted under Factor 1;

however, each task/delivery order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor. Submissions of multiple task/delivery orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

Relevant Projects must include at least two (2) of the following elements:

Experience designing and constructing vehicle and pedestrian access control points and security fencing Vehicle canopy of at least 1000 SF for the purpose of screening Communication/electrical support facilities of at least 300 SF Experience working within existing project facilities or actual project sites with detailed phasing, sequencing and staging requirements to maintain full operation of the facilities or sites during construction (adjacent facilities or sites will not be accepted)

Utility Identification and Relocation, topographic surveys Traffic Management – both vehicle and pedestrian Access roadways with vehicle inspection area considering adequate queuing space for vehicles and rejection lane Passive vehicle barriers, active vehicle barriers, gate arms, vehicular double swing gate, Under Vehicle Screening

Systems (UVSS), License Plate Readers (LPR), K12 rated security fencing, over watch area etc.

Pedestrian screening equipment such as card readers, turnstiles, exterior double action turnstiles, pedestrian swing gates, etc.

Security screening equipment (magnetometer and x-ray machines, metal detectors, etc.)

Guard/Police booth/gatehouse

Security Systems such as public address system, video surveillance system, electronic surveillance system, fire alarm system, etc.

Demolition of concrete structures (water treatment basin)

In addition to demonstrating at least two (2) or more of the elements above, Design Firms must also demonstrate “Preparation of full plans and specifications” and must have at least one of the elements below:

Experience coordinating for permits with Arlington County, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

(VaDEQ)

Experience preparing submittals and presenting to National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the

Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and/or Virginia State Historic Preservation Office

*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 and ballistic resistant windows were installed, etc.).

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 proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposal and shall be in the same format as the form. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

The only submissions under the tab for this section are to be the completed “Attachment A” forms or similar format as indicated above. Only the information provided in either of these formats will be considered.

Company summaries/introductions, project summary charts/matrices, etc. will not be accepted or evaluated.

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

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

Previously completed PPQ-0s may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other solicitations.

Submitted PPQ-0s must only reference this solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings will pulled for all relevant projects and will be evaluated.

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 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/pictures 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.

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

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

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 as well as considering the project scope of work information.

2.2.1. The Offeror shall identify three (3) of the projects from Factor 1 it believes are most relevant to the solicited project to be considered for this factor. A single boilerplate discussion for all three (3) projects will not be accepted.

For each specific project, the Offeror shall:

Provide a description of the management approach used on that specific project;

Identify any challenges encountered and how they were mitigated;

Identify lessons learned; and How lessons learned and mitigation results will be applied to the solicited project.

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

3.1. FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraph 2.1 above.

Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government; that is, projects that are considered to be less relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, completion within six (6) years and/or demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of less 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 may 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.”

3.2. FACTOR 2 – PRIOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is a project specific discussions that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 2.2 for each project in sufficient detail to demonstrate management capability.

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 small business 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 and 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 shall limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors. Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor 2 - Prior Project Management

See sections 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 will be evaluated by examining the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.1.1 to determine the relevancy of a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror, and assigning one of the relevancy ratings below. These ratings will then influence the overall Confidence Assessment for Factor 1:

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

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and 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; PPQ’S, information gathered from POCs, Program Managers, Contracting Officers 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 rating will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 2 (Prior Project Management):

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. 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. Up to five (5) Offerors, which are determined to be the most highly qualified Offerors, will advance to Phase II.

4.5. Exchanges with Offerors prior to Phase II: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that an award will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to communicate with Offerors if it is deemed necessary. Therefore, proposals shall be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If exchanges 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.

4.6. Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award.

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 design-build factors identified below. The evaluation rating for Factors 1 and 2 shall move forward from phase I. Factors 3 will be adjectivally rated and Factor

4 will be evaluated. Factors in phase II will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15. Factors 1 through 4 are of equal importanve and when combined more important than Factor 5( Price).

Factor 3 - Technical Approach Factor 4- Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5- Price

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.

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.

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.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

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 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…