W912DR19R0016.pdf

US Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District

SOLICITATION FOR

North Village ACP Perimeter Fence Pentagon

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

SOLICITATION NO.: W912DR19R0016

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2019

THIS PROCUREMENT IS UNRESTRICTED.

PROJECT TITLE: Pentagon - North Village ACP and Perimeter Fence

This proposed procurement is Full & Open Competition (Unrestricted); NAICS Code: 236220 "Commercial and Institutional Building Construction" w ith a size standard of $36,500,000.00.

This is a Firm Fixed Price, Tw o (2) Phase Design-Build Construction Contract utilizing the Best Value Tradeoff process.

Contractors are requested to review requirements and instructions for a Tw o (2) Phase Design-Build selection in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP). This is Phase I of the solicitation phase. Phase II of the solicitation w ill be issued as an amendment and only be available to those offerors selected to advance from Phase I to Phase II.

ROBERT N JACKSON JR 410-962-3464

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

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

NEGOTIATED

19-Feb-2019

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________540 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________4 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________21 Mar 2019 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

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

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

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

03-G-04

BALTIMORE MD 21201

W912DR

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

10:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: 410-962-0874 TEL: FAX:

W912DR19R0016 68

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 20 00 - Instructions for Procurement

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This solicitation is a two-phase Design-Build solicitation. Currently, this solicitation is for Phase 1 only. Phase 1 submissions will be reviewed and no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified proposals will be invited to submit Phase 2 proposals. Bid bonds are not required to be submitted until Phase 2 submissions. Additionally, a bid schedule and expanded specifications and details regarding the concept design will be provided during the Phase 2 via a solicitation amendment.

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING THIS ACQUISITION

1. PROPOSAL CONDITIONS

a. Contractors must provide all required documents for Phase I and bid all items in Phase II in the above 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 & Open Competition (Unrestricted) .

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: Robert Jackson, Floor 03-G-27, 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. VISITOR/SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

All Pentagon building guests shall pre-register for access to the building. Visitors will not be allowed access during the weekends, holidays and after hours unless they have been pre-registered. Pre-registering visitors allows the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) to conduct a background check of visitors entering the building. A background check ensures that individuals with known terrorist connections or a history of criminal behavior are denied entry. Vistor pre-registration also decreases the processing time on the day of the visit.

More information concerning visitor/security requirements will be added for Phase II.

5. 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), 07 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: 2AKCKD-PW3785

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 07 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. ***

SCOPE OF WORK

This work includes but is not limited to a new fully suited ACP to house vehicular screening, both employee and visitor entrance pedestrian screening and authentication activities, related site rework and improvements to accommodate phased construction and the new buildings, and revised roadways to allow for adequate queuing. 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 modification of the existing site to allow for phased construction and the siting of the new building, to provide new walkways at the perimeter of the building which tie into existing walkways, new K12 rated security fencing, gates, active vehicle barriers, removal of the South Basin contents and associated piping, way-finding and signage, and site lighting.

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

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 00-A-26, 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 through 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this solicitation, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror”.

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

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

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

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

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

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

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

Past Performance 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…