B.08.03 - Amendment 0001 - Solicitation - W912DR20R0003 - 10.21.20.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment: W912DR20R0003-0001, East Campus Building 4 (ECB4), Fort George G, Meade, MD

The purpose of this amendment is to provide official responses to ProjNet Bidder Inquiries, provide revisions to section 00 21 16 of the solicitation and extend the proposal response date and time from 11-Nov-2020, 11:00 AM EST to 12-Nov-2020, 11:00 AM EST. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. See summary of changes for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Oct-2020

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 W912DR20R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Sep-2020

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

21-Oct-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

2 HOPKINS PLAZA 03-B-07

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:

W912DR20R0003

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:

AMENDMENT 0001

ECB4 AMENDMENT 0001

Dated October 21, 2020

General:

1. The proposal response date and time has been extended from November 11, 2020 at 11:00 AM EST to

November 12, 2020 at 11:00 AM EST.

2. Section 00 21 16, Subsection 1.2 Source Selection

Deleted: The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted. Where the technical merits of competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

3. Section 00 21 16, Subsection 1.3 Proposal Volumes and Copies

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

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

4. Section 00 21 16, Subsection 3.2 Factor 1 – Corporate Experience and Past Performance, Paragraph 2

Deleted: If projects submitted have comparable scope to this solicitation including working within secure facilities (e.g., restricted site access, vetting of employees, clear background checks, security coordination/escorting) it may demonstrate a potential increase ability of successful contract performance.

Projects of lesser relevance may lead to lower confidence assessments.

Replaced with: If projects submitted have comparable scope to this solicitation including working within secure facilities (e.g., restricted site access, vetting of employees, clear background checks, security coordination/escorting) it may result in higher relevancy rating which may lead to a higher confidence assessment. Projects of lesser relevance may lead to lower confidence assessments.

5. Section 00 21 16, Subsection 5.1 Phase II

Deleted GOVERNMNENT & OFFEROR INTERIM EXCHANGE in its entirety.

6. Attachment 6: Award Fee Plan, page 18, Subfactor 2B, Schedule Management

Deleted: I. Effectiveness in maintaining and exceeding accepted construction schedule.

Replaced with: I. Effectiveness in maintaining accepted construction schedule.

Requests for Information & Responses (ProjNet Bidder Inquiry):

7. Section General [RFI 8865125]

Comment:

The solicitation states Prime Contractors may submit for approval SOAs for their anticipated key trade subcontractors during the Phase I solicitation period.

Please clarify if the intent is for the Prime Contractor to submit SOAs prior to the Phase I submission date, submit the SOAs with the Phase I submission, or can the Prime Contractor submit SOAs at any point prior to Phase II release?

Response:

The Prime Contractor must submit their own SOA no later than 1 week from the date the Phase 1 Solicitation was issued per Solicitation section 00 20 00 Item V.

The Prime Contractor may submit subcontractor SOA's at any point prior to Phase II release. The Government encourages the Prime Contractors to submit these subcontractor SOA's early. During Phase II, Prime contractors cannot distribute any portion of the specifications and drawings to any subcontractor or other business entity until that other entity submits a Statement of Affiliation (SOA) to the Government and have been notified that the SOA has been approved.

8. Section: General [RFI 8865126]

For Corporate Experience, the RFP states "Construction must have been completed within the last 10 years from the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued; or for ongoing projects, either Design-Build or Design-Bid- Build,.."

Please clarify if CM at Risk delivery method projects can also be considered relevant as long as the other requirements are met.

Response:

Projects utilizing the CM at Risk delivery method may also be considered relevant for the Prime Contractor as well as the DOR. If the project is submitted for the Prime Contractor, the Prime Contractor must have performed as the construction contractor for the project. The Offeror shall clearly identify the date the design was completed and the start/end of construction for the projects with CM at Risk delivery method.

9. Section General 00 21 16 [RFI 8866783]

Part 2.2.1 Corporate Experience indicates Offeror shall submit a maximum of ten (10) projects... If the contractor and the designer worked on the same project together may they both submit that project as one project (reflecting both design and construction) and it will only be counted as one project out of the maximum ten projects OR shall the contractor and the designer submit this project separately and it counts as two projects out of the maximum ten projects?

Response:

The Contractor and the designer may both submit the same project separately and it would count as two projects out of the maximum ten.

10. Section General 00 20 00 [RFI 8866784]

Part VIII.b. of the solicitation provides hand carried and mailed proposal instructions. Due to the current COVID-19 Pandemic, has the Army Corps considered receiving proposals for this project only electronically via DoD Safe? If DoD Safe is not acceptable please advise if the Baltimore District's Contracting Branch office will be open to receive proposals on November 11, 2020, Veterans Day.

Response:

Hard copy proposals will be required per the solicitation requirements. The Baltimore District Office will not be open on November 11, 2020. Therefore, an amendment will be issued to change the required submission date to November 12, 2020.

11. Section General 00 21 16 [RFI 8866785]

Part 1.4.2.d. identifies that an Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA) should be submitted in Volume II. We have already received an email approval of our Statement of Affiliation. Please confirm that the email is sufficient documentation of approval to include in our submission or advise if additional documentation of approval will be provided by USACE.

Response:

The approval email received is sufficient documentation of approval.

12. Section General [RFI 8867164]

What level of design documents (e.g., program of requirements, building floor plans/ elevations) will be included in the phase two RFP?

Response:

The Government intends to include the following types of design documents with the ECB4 RFP: Program requirements, concept site plans, blocking & stacking diagrams, mechanical/electrical schematic diagrams, room data sheets. The Government also intends on including some architectural concept drawings to include exterior elevations. These architectural concepts are intended to present one possible solution to the Offerors and are not to be assumed as the preferred solution.

13. Section General [RFI 8867178]

Per the solicitation, one of the projects provided for Corporate Experience is required to have a large structured parking facility and the parking facility shall have a minimum of 1500 spaces. Please confirm a project will be deemed relevant if the Offeror includes surface lot spaces as part of the 1500 space count, when the majority (over 80% of the spaces are within the structured facility and the remaining is in an adjacent surface lot).

Response:

A project will be deemed relevant if 80% or more of the spaces are within the structured facility. The surface lot must be adjacent to the structured facility.

14. Section General 00 21 16 [RFI 8867195]

To allow a fair competition among all shortlisted contractors, we request USACE Baltimore to provide 100% design or IFC documents of ECB2 / ECB3 projects upon shortlisting or as part of the ECB4 phase two RFP for reference. As a precedent, USACE Baltimore provided the entire ECB1 100% design documents as reference document as part of ECBMC RFP.

Response:

The Government intends to issue a select number of IFC drawings from the ECB2 and ECB3 projects after downselection of Offerors occurs. The intent of such issuance would be for all Offerors to have an understanding of the overall campus perspective for the architectural and technical approach taken to date.

These drawings are not intended to relay specific requirements associated with ECB4, nor shall they supersede any ECB4 specific requirements that have been included within the RFP. In general, the Government intends to provide drawings from ECB2 and ECB3 that depict the following: Exterior building elevations, overall site layout, select interior floor plans, mechanical/electrical one line diagrams.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Nov-2020 11:00 AM to 12-Nov-2020 11:00 AM.

The Issued By organization below has been added:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

2 HOPKINS PLAZA 03-B-07

BALTIMORE MD 21201

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL PROVISIONS - PHASE I

PHASE I SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. Basis for Award: This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a fixed price award fee design-build contract.

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government in Phase I and II. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA.

While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below.

Phase 1 – Relative Importance

Factor 1 (Carried to Phase II)

Corporate Experience and Past Performance

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

Factor 2 Management Philosophy Factor 2 is the least important Factor.

Phase II – Relative Importance

Factor 3 Technical/Design Solution Factor 3 is more important than Factor 1.

Factor 1 (Carried from Phase I)

Corporate Experience and Past Performance

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4 Offeror Interview Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5.

Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan Factor 5 is the least important Factor.

Factor 6 Price Approximately equal to all Non-Price Factors Combined

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

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

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

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

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

c. Electronic Requirement 1- In addition to the written binder requirement, all Offerors must provide an electronic copy of their proposal in .pdf format (bookmarked and searchable) on a compact disc (CD).

(The electronic copy shall be one file per volume that is an exact color copy of the hard, original proposal).

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

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

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

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

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Corporate Experience and Past Performance TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Philosophy

The total number of pages must not exceed 80 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing in Factor 1 behind the tab for 2.2.2 relating to past performance evaluations, are not counted in the overall page limitation.

Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 80 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in the count).

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

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

b. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

c. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

d. Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

Those Offerors selected for Phase II will have to resign the SF1442. Additionally, Phase II Offerors are also prohibited from distributing specifications and drawings to any subcontractor until they submit a SOA to the Government and have been notified that the SOA has been approved.

1.5. Proposal envelopes shall be marked with the Offeror’s name, Solicitation Number, and the solicitation Closing

Time and Date. (See SF1442 Block 1 and Block 13)

1.6. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2 Hopkins Plaza, ATTN: Sierra Marshall Rm 00-A-26, Baltimore, MD 21201, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1442, Block 13. Offeror proposals received after the required time and date deadline, will not be evaluated.

1.7. Use of Non-government Advisors in Source Selection:

It is currently anticipated that the following companies will take on a limited role in the evaluation of portions of the Offerors’ proposals during Phase II only:

Dewberry Engineers Parsons Tyto Athene, LLC PCI Strategic Management, LLC

(a) Offerors are invited to review FAR 9.505 regarding organizational conflicts of interest;

(b) Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified above may serve as technical advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board in the source selection process. Government advisors are being included for their specific technical knowledge in specific disciplines for use by the SSEB. These advisors will review the proposals and provide the SSEB with their review comments. The Advisors will not be involved in the consensus of the factor rating and are considered non-voting and non-board members who provide specific advice relative to their respective area of expertise. Only the SSEB shall be involved in determining the ratings for the factors. In addition some of these employees of the firms identified above may serve or have served in the conceptual development of this project, the development of the RFP and may have been involved in the value engineering process of this project.

(c) These individuals will be authorized to access only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. They will not have access to the Price section of the proposal. Per DoD Source Selection Procedures, nongovernment advisors shall not participate in the review and evaluation of past performance information.

(d) In accomplishing their duties, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offeror's proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4 – if access to proprietary information is required, these firms must execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will

(1) protect the Offeror's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it is furnished. A copy of such non-disclosure agreements shall be provided to the contracting officer prior to nongovernmental advisors viewing proposal information. The NDA will be required to be submitted with the Phase II proposal.

(e) Further, Offerors must provide with their proposal written consent to the Government, stating that the Offeror consents to nongovernmental advisors or their companies accessing the Offeror’s proprietary information. The consent form will be required to be submitted with the Phase II proposal. The companies identified herein have agreed not to engage in the design or construction that is related to this effort, to abide by FAR Subpart 9.5, “Organizational Conflicts of Interest,” and to refrain from disclosing proprietary information to unauthorized personnel.

(f) After the non-Government advisors have completed their particular area of evaluation, they will be released from the evaluation process. All non-Government advisors will only have access to specific information corresponding to Factor 3: Technical/Design Solution.

2. SUBMISSION CRITERIA

2.1. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, FACTORS 1-2): For purposes of this solicitation, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of additional projects submitted where the submitting entity performed as a subcontractor on the submitted project, the submitting entity must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

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

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

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

2.2. FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND 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 recency and relevancy.

The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. All projects must have a construction completion date within the past ten (10) years from the date the Phase 1 solicitation is issued. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the past ten (10) years will also be considered. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled “CORPORATE EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” (Attachment A). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposals, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposals and shall be in the same format as the form. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment A. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

2.2.1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE: The Offeror shall submit information on a minimum of seven (7) projects and a maximum of ten (10) projects demonstrating the Offeror's recent, relevant experience.

1). Construction must have been completed within the last 10 years from the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued; or for ongoing projects, either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build, 100% of the design and approximately 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed by the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued.

2). At least three (3) projects must be from the construction contractor and at least two (2) projects must be from the design firm.

3). At least three (3) projects must be greater than 250,000 square feet, or must be over $100M in construction costs.

4) The remaining projects must be greater than 150,000 square feet, or must be over $50M in construction costs.

5) For projects submitted that demonstrate a large structured parking facility, the parking facility shall have a minimum of 1500 spaces. The parking facility project is not subject to the dollar or square footage requirements.

In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must submit at least two projects under this factor. Offerors shall address the discussion requested on Attachment A while meeting the teaming arrangement requirements in section 2.1 above.

If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of ten (10) completed projects, the first ten (10) projects submitted will be evaluated only, while the remaining additional projects(s) will not be evaluated.

Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) or any other type of task-order contracts that provide for the issuance of task orders for the performance of tasks will not be considered projects for the purposes of this evaluation. Only individual task orders issued under such contracts will be evaluated as projects. Project descriptions that do not clearly describe Offeror's or team member's limit of experience, scope of the project or periods of project performance will not be considered.

Offeror’s must demonstrate experience in the following areas

a) Performance by the Offeror as a Prime Contractor.

b) Experience between the Contractor and Designer of Record (DOR) firm.

c) Design-Build Contract delivery method.

d) Redundant power or cooling building systems.

e) Design and/or construction in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive 705 (ICD 705).

f) Construction of a large structured parking facility.

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

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

2.2.2. PAST PERFORMANCE: For each of the projects submitted in response to Section 2.2.1, provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, or a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), completed by a representative of the owner that provides the owner's opinion of the Offeror's past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-

0) included in the RFP (Attachment B) is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the owner for each project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact. Organize all Past Performance Information in the same order in which the Projects are submitted.

Submit completed PPQs with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). At the owner's discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Sierra Marshall, via email at sierra.s.marshall@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. If you have questions regarding the PPQs, or require assistance, please contact Ms. Marshall at (240) 636-9615.

Previously completed PPQs may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other RFP.

Submitted PPQs must only reference this RFP.

Submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews even if they may be in the agency's databases or likely within the agency's arm's reach, i.e., Contractor's copy of CPARS evaluations for each of the projects submitted, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information.

Provide the DUNS number(s) and CAGE code(s) for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, e.g., design firms, key subcontractors, joint venture partners, whose experience is included in this Factor. 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.

The Government plans to contact and interview the owner's representative identified on the Past Performance Questionnaires, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner's representative, if the owner's representative is not available. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Owners, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror.

2.3. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY:

All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate management capability.

2.3.1. Overall Corporate Management Structure (Approach): Describe the overall corporate management structure of the Offeror's design-build team. If the Offeror is made up of more than one firm, describe the business relationship, the authorities of the team members, and the delegation of authorities, if any, within the team to include partnering firms and subcontractors. Include an organizational chart depicting the hierarchical structure of the positions responsible for project execution. Provide a narrative description of the roles and responsibilities of the key project positions. The Offeror must describe their approach to selecting team members and major subcontractors for the project. The Offeror shall include a description that explains how and why they determine specific individuals for their teams and what factors are considered for selection of key subcontractors. Describe the overall change management approach for the project.

2.3.2. Workforce and Subcontractor Management Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its approach to managing a diverse workforce and multiple subcontractors. East Campus Building 4 shall be designed and constructed to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) physical and technical security standards. All work performed under this contract, including, but not limited to, design, construction, on-site work, and off-site work, shall be performed by U.S. companies using U.S. citizens. The Offeror must describe the strategies it intends to employ to address these challenges with their workforce and subcontractors.

2.3.3. Design Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the design process. The narrative shall state why the Offeror's design team is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. The narrative must describe the design team's approach to working with the customer and the means to integrate its input during the design phase, how sole source products and vendors will be integrated within the design and design team, the approach to furniture design, how it will manage design quality control

- track design evolution, coordinate the different design disciplines, and track the design to the requirements of the RFP - during the design process, and how design refinement will be documented and executed after acceptance of Issued for Construction (IFC) design documents.

2.3.4. Construction Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the construction of this project. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of key and/or specialty subcontractors. The narrative must state why the Offeror's construction team is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. The narrative must include the Offeror's approach to working within a constrained site while integrating its construction into an occupied facility. The narrative must also include the Offeror’s approach to Quality Control and their overall Quality Control Program to include a discussion on the overall Quality Control and how it will integrate with the Government’s Quality Assurance process.

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

Describe the organization of the on-site design-build team and the duties and responsibilities of each position.

Include in the narrative the Offeror's approach to effectively coordinate work between subcontractors to minimize design and construction conflicts.

2.3.6. Scheduling Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of how it plans to schedule both design and construction activities in order to execute a project of this size within the incremental funding profile provided against an established Work-In-Place (WIP) curve and within the period of performance. The Offeror must describe and discuss its plan to sequence and manage key activities such as design, permitting, procurement, construction, and project close-out. The Offeror shall clearly articulate any assumption made in its plan to sequence and manage key activities and any constraints that may be levied on the proposed schedule.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

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

3.2. FACTOR 1 - CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for corporate experience and past performance, as stated in section 2.2.

above. The level of relevancy for a project will be determined by the evaluated extent to which a single project demonstrates multiple requirements, or characteristics, identified in section 2.2. For example, a project that demonstrates both a Design-Build contract delivery method and redundant power or cooling may be found to be more relevant than a project that demonstrates only a Design-Build delivery method. Additional consideration may be given to projects with greater scope complexity, size, and dollar amount. Additional consideration may be given to multiple project relationships with the proposed designer. Additional consideration may be given to projects that successfully demonstrated meeting aggressive schedules and/or fast tracked projects.

If projects submitted have comparable scope to this solicitation including working within secure facilities (e.g., restricted site access, vetting of employees, clear background checks, security coordination/escorting) it may result in higher relevancy rating which may lead to a higher confidence assessment. Projects of lesser relevance may lead to lower confidence assessments.

Validation of Offeror performance may occur through contacting the client POC provided by the Offeror on the first page of the PPQ and various government and commercial resources. Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government. That is, projects that are considered to be non-relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, percentage completion within ten (10) years, responses to the Attachment A, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 2.2.1. (submitted under Factor 1) and demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the work. More relevant projects and high past performance evaluations will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Higher confidence assessments will be given for higher past performance evaluation ratings.

In the case of Offerors for which no recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance report is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

3.3. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is a project specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraphs 2.3 in sufficient detail to demonstrate adequate management approach. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraphs 2.3 which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

Proposals should address the following minimum requirements:

a) Provide an organizational chart and matrix or list of roles and responsibilities highlighting key positions within the project team.

b) Describe the approach for selecting team members and major subcontractors for the project.

c) Describe the overall design and construction management approach; means of integrating client and location of major design and production work; means of integrating the interior design package during the construction phase of the project, role of key subcontractors and management of efficiencies of the schedule and execution.

d) Describe the approach for coordinating work between subcontractors.

e) Describe coordinating with ongoing East Campus construction projects.

f) Describe the approach to quality control during construction.

g) Describe DOR integrator approach lifecycle.

h) Describe the Change Management process.

4. RATING METHODS:

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

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

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors, nor will information found in one factor be used in the evaluation of another factor. Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated.

Factor 1 - Corporate Experience and Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Philosophy

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

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

Past Performance for Factor 1 (Corporate Experience and Past Performance) will be evaluated by evaluating the projects submitted under the tab for paragraph 2.2.1., Experience in Relevant Projects, to determine the relevancy of a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror and assigning one of the relevancy ratings below. These ratings will then influence the overall Confidence Assessment for Factor 1:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

These ratings will be influenced by the relevancy ratings, above, the past performance questionnaires (PPQ-0) as well as any Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) ratings, Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials;

and the Defense Contract Management Agency listed for and associated with the submitted projects:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMBINED TECHNICAL / RISK RATING METHOD:

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

4.3. Phase I Down Select: After the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider both factors to determine which Offerors are most highly qualified for continuing on to Phase II. The SSA will compare the proposals, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. It is the Government’s intention to advance up to three (3) of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase I to Phase II.

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

5. PHASE II

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

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

Phase II – Relative Importance

Factor 3 Technical/Design Solution Factor 3 is more important than Factor 1.

Factor 1 (Carried from Phase I)

Corporate Experience and Past Performance

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4 Offeror Interview…