B.08.03 - Amendment 0001 - Solicitation - W912DR20R0007 - 11.02.20.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: W912DR20R0007-0001, Records Center Replacement and Mercury Flora Facilities (RCR/MCF), 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 30-Nov-2020, 11:00 AM EST to 02-Dec-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 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Nov-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 W912DR20R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Oct-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

03-Nov-2020

CODE

USACE, BALTMORE DISTRICT

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

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:

W912DR20R0007

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

AMENDMENT W912DR20R0007-0001: RECORDS CENTER REPLACEMENT AND MERCURY FLORA

(RCR/MCF) FACILITIES, FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND

EFFECTIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2020

AMENDMENT:

1. General: The proposal response date and time has been extended from November 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM

EST to December 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM EST.

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

DELETE:

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

REPLACE WITH:

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

3. Attachment 6: Award Fee Plan, page 14, Attachment 2, Evaluation Periods Table

44 Months after Contract NTP (In the Table under Evaluation Period 8).

40 Months after Contract NTP (In the Table under Evaluation Period 8).

4. Section: General [RFI 8872532]

Comment: Are there any requirements for special consultants to be on the team?

Response: Yes, there are requirements for specialized design and consultant expertise at the time of award.

As part of the Phase II solicitation, the RFP which is currently in development may include requirements for special consultants such as SCADA system integration, EMCS integration, lighting system design and integration, and RF shielding into their project team. However, for Phase I it is up to the Offeror to use their judgment to assemble and propose the best team (including other special consultants) to design and construct the RCR/MCF facilities.

5. Section: General [RFI 8872536]

Comment: Is there a need to discuss SBE or Workforce EOE in the Management Approach for this phase?

Response: No, there is no need to discuss Small Business Enterprise (SBE) and Workforce Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) in Phase I.

6. Section: General [RFI 8872539]

Comment: What are the intended Liquidated Damages?

Response: The Government anticipates the liquidated damages to be approximately $10,490.00 Per Day.

The official liquidated damages will be provided in Phase II.

7. Section: General [RFI 8872547]

Comment: Is there a facility clearance required of offers at this stage?

Response: No, a facility clearance is not required for this acquisition nor the subsequent contract.

8. Section 2 Submission Criteria, Section 2.1 Minimum Submission Criteria [RFI 8876129]

Comment: Per the RFP, Section 2 Submission Criteria, Section 2.1 Minimum Submission Criteria, we are required to submit a teaming agreement/commitment for entities in which the offeror includes multiple entities that have formed a "contractor team arrangement" per FAR Part 9.6. That signed teaming agreement/commitment is required if we are utilizing prior experience and past performance by any of the members of that contractor team arrangement. In Volume 1, Factor 1, the offeror is required to submit a minimum of two (2) relevant projects from the design firm. In that case that the design firm is not part of a contractor team arrangement, and is not one of the entities that makes up the prime offeror, please confirm that a signed teaming agreement/commitment is NOT required in the case of the design firm(s).

Response: If a teaming agreement is not provided, the Government will not evaluate projects from that design firm without a teaming agreement in place. If the Offeror plans to submit projects from a design firm to be considered, a teaming agreement must be provided.

9. Section 2 Submission Criteria, Section 2.2.1 Corporate Experience [RFI 8880912]

Comment: The RFP indicates that projects accepted for consideration to be evaluated must have their construction 75% complete. Many of our very relevant Design projects have successfully been completed 100% and have been highly rated by the client however, the associated construction project has not yet attained the 75% completion. Please allow for full consideration 100% completed Design Projects to be presented by the DOR and their subconsultants indifferent of the completion of the follow-on construction contract.

Response: No. 100% completed design only projects are not allowed without having approximately 75% of major construction milestones completed.

2.2.1 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

00 21 16, Section 2.2.1, Paragraph 1) For all projects, construction must have been completed within the last 10 years from the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued; or for ongoing projects, 75% of the major construction milestones must be completed by the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued.

00 21 16, Section 2.2.1, Paragraph 1) For all projects, 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.

10. Section 2 Submission Criteria, Section 2.2 [RFI 8880913]

Comment: It is customary that under the DOR there will be a series of specialty consultants. Will first tier subcontractor to the Designer of Record (DOR) receive evaluation of their experience provided that the appropriate TAs are in place and are indicating the DOR's subcontractor specific role provided that they are in fact a second tire subcontractor to the Prime General Contractor?

Response: Yes, if the appropriate teaming agreements are provided, the Government will evaluate projects from a second tier design subcontractor.

11. Section 2 Submission Criteria, Section 2.2 [RFI 8880914]

Comment: If the experience of second tier design subcontractor (first tier subcontractor to the Designer of Record) is not acceptable will the Government allow the formation of Joint Venture of Key Design firms and allow the JV to become a subcontractor to the Prime GC. In this case will the JV members be required to provide individually a minimum of two example design projects.

Response: Experience of second tier design subcontractor is allowed through an appropriate teaming agreement, including Joint Venture, see response to RFI 8880913. Joint Ventures that do not involve the Prime Offeror, do not need to meet the minimum of two example projects as the construction contractor.

12. Section 1.4 and 1.41 [RFI 8885262]

Comment: Please confirm that the cover, title page, cover letter, and table of contents are excluded from the maximum 80-page limit for the Phase I, Volume I Technical Proposal.

Response: Confirmed.

13. Section: General [RFI 8888688]

Comment: Will previously prepared drawings or deliverables be made available?

Response: The Government intends to issue select drawings for Phase II. 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, however the Government makes no representation as to what would be an appropriate design for this project.

14. Section: General [RFI 8889751]

Comment: Scope of Work - What will be the technical requirements for the Uninterruptable Mechanical Supply (UMS) system to ensure continuity of operations?

Response: The Government will provide the technical requirements via an amendment directly to the Offerors selected for Phase II.

15. Section 00 20 00 – Instructions for Procurement, Page 5 of 72, IX Requests for Information [RFI 8889755]

Comment: Would the government consider providing an additional week for offerors to request information in ProjNet. We respectfully request the RFI deadline be moved from the current date of 28 October 2020 to 04 November 2020.

Response: The Government will not extend the RFI deadline.

16. Section 2.2.2 Past Performance, Page 11 of 72 [RFI 8889762]

Comment: In a government design-build project where the prime construction contractor holds the design-build contract, government clients are frequently not in a position to fill out PPQs for the contractor's AE design-partner, since there is no direct contractual relationship between that government client and the AE firm. And, of course, there is no ACASS provided to the design partner, for the same reason. Please clarify if a PPQ, filled out by the design-build contractor, is an acceptable evaluation for the AE partner's design past performance, since the contractor is a client of that AE firm.

Response: A PPQ filled out by the Design-Build Contractor evaluating the AE partner’s past design performance is not acceptable. The Government will not evaluate DOR PPQ’s filled out by the Prime Contractor. The Government will evaluate any PPQ filled out by the owner/client.

17. Section 2.2.2 Past Performance, Page 11 of 72 [RFI 88889763]

Comment: Since an ACASS or design firm CPAR is not available for government design-build contracts, please confirm if it is acceptable for a design-build prime contractor (as the Offeror) to submit the design-build prime contractor's CPAR or CCASS evaluation as evidence of past performance of the design partner, if the design partner of the featured project is the same as the proposed design partner.

Response: Yes, if the proposed design partner is the same design partner in a previous project of the prime Design-Build contractor, it is acceptable to submit the CPARS evaluation as evidence of past performance for the design partner.

18. Section 1.4.1 Volume 1 (Technical Proposal), Page 8 of 72 [RFI 8889771]

Comment: Please confirm that PPQs and CPARS/CCASS/ACASS evaluations are not included in the 80 page limit.

Response: Confirmed, Past Performance evaluations are not part of the overall page count.

DELETE:

00 21 16, Section 1.4.1, 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.

REPLACED WITH:

00 21 16, Section 1.4.1, The data appearing in Factor 1 under the tab for 2.2.2 relating to past performance evaluations, are not counted in the overall page limitation.

19. Section: General [RFI 8889772]

Comment: Procurement Schedule - Based on the schedule provided in the presols for ECB4 and RCR/MCF there was an overlap of phase II solicitations and respective submissions. Do you still anticipate this overlap and/ or are there any updates to procurement schedule you can share to eliminate this overlap?

Response: The Government acknowledges that ECB4 and RCR/MCF Phase II solicitations overlap and will proceed as scheduled.

20. Section 1.4.1 Volume I (Technical Proposal), Page 8 of 71 [RFI 8889773]

Comment: Please confirm that Teaming agreements/Letters of Commitment/JV agreements are not included in the 80 page limitation and that these should be included in the Volume I (Technical Proposal)

Response: Confirmed, Teaming Agreements, Letters of Commitments, and JV agreements are not included in the 80 page limit. Yes, these agreements should be included in the Volume 1 Technical Proposal.

21. Section 2.2.2 Past Performance, Page 11 of 72 [RFI 8889777]

Comment: Past Performance states to "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..." Are "Interim" CPARS evaluations that are not yet marked as "Final" under Evaluation Type desired?

Response: Yes, if CPARS evaluations are not completed, interim evaluations will be acceptable.

22. Section 1.4.2 Volume I (Technical Proposal), Page 8 of 72 [RFI 8889816]

Comment: Should Offerors include a completed copy of Section 00 62 00 - Certificates and Other Forms in the Volume II - Administrative Documents?

Response: Yes

DELETE:

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)

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. Completed Representations and Certifications (Section 00 45 00 and 00 62 00)

c. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

e. Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

23. Section 1.4.2 Volume I (Technical Proposal), Page 8 of 72 [RFI 8889819]

Comment: Is a copy of completed Representations and Certifications required of offerors for Phase I and should this be included in the Volume II - Administrative Documents?

Response: Yes

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

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

f. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

g. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

h. Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

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

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

g. Completed Representations and Certifications (Section 00 45 00 and 00 62 00)

h. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

i. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

j. Approved Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

24. SF 1442, Block 13, Page 1 of 72 [RFI 8889825]

Comment: We respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date from 30 November 2020 to 4 December 2020 to account for shipping on a holiday weekend.

Response: Proposal due date will be extended from 30 November 2020 to 2 December 2020.

25. Section 2.2.2 Past Performance, Page 11 of 72 [RFI 8889886]

Comment: If available, please clarify whether a CPAR/CCASS/ACASS and PPQ may both be provided to demonstrate a project's past performance.

Response: Yes, if both, CPARS/CCASS/ACASS and PPQ are available, please provide to demonstrate past performance.

DELETE:

00 21 16, Section 2.2.2, 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.

REPLACED WITH:

00 21 16, Section 2.2.2, For each of the projects submitted in response to Section 2.2.1, provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, and/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.

26. Section: General [RFI 8889895]

Comment: Please confirm that resumes for key personnel are not required with the Step 1 submission.

If resumes are required, please provide a list of the key personnel resumes that must be submitted.

Response: Confirmed. Resumes for key personnel are not required.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Nov-2020 11:00 AM to 02-Dec-2020 11:00 AM.

The Issued By organization below has been added:

USACE, BALTMORE DISTRICT

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

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 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 under 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. Completed Representations and Certifications (Section(s) 00 45 00 and 00 62 00)

c. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

e. 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 subcontractors 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 Mason & Hanger

(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, non-government 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 projects, 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 Protégé is a Small and Large business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

2.2. FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE ANDPAST 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 I 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 five (5) projects and a maximum of eight (8) projects demonstrating the Offeror's recent, relevant experience.

1) For all projects, 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 Prime Contractor and at least two (2) projects must be from the design firm.

3) At least three (3) projects submitted must be greater than 100,000 square feet, or must be over $75M in construction costs.

4) 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) Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) and/or Uninterruptable Mechanical Supply (UMS).

e) SCIF construction in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive 705 (ICD 705) or Director of Central Intelligence Directive 6/9 (DCID6/9).

In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must submit at least two projects as the construction contractor. 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 eight (8) completed projects, the first eight (8) 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 order 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.

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, and/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: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation.

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.

2.3.2. Workforce and Subcontractor Management Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its approach to managing a diverse workforce and multiple subcontractors. RCR/MCF shall be designed and constructed to ICD-705 compliant Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) physical and technical security standards.

All work performed under this contract, including, but not limited to, design, construction, on-site work, and off-site work, shall be performed by U.S. companies using U.S. citizens. The Offeror must describe the strategies it intends to employ to address these challenges and ensure RCR/MCF program materials are not released to unauthorized personnel or firms.

2.3.3. Design Approach and Narrative: The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure for and approach to the design process noting the Designer of Record (DOR). The narrative shall state why the Offeror's design team is uniquely qualified to undertake this project. The narrative must describe the design team's approach to working with the customer and the means to integrate its input during the design phase, how it will manage design quality control - track design evolution and coordinate the different design disciplines - during the design process, and how design refinement will be documented and executed after acceptance of Issued for Construction (IFC) design documents. The Offeror should also indicate the location of major design and production work as well as the DOR integrator approach lifecycle

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 should include the Offeror’s approach for coordinating work between subcontractors as well as their approach to working within a constrained and secure site while simultaneously construction projects and customer operations are ongoing within the site. The narrative must also include the Offeror’s approach to Quality Control and their overall Quality Control Program.

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 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. The Offeror should also explain their plans to manage efficiencies, risk and execution of the schedule including a risk management plan that identifies major risk to the proposed schedule as well as proposed mitigations.

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: The Government desires proposals that offer the best combination of experience considering all criteria. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant corporate experience, including strength and weaknesses of the prime contractor and team members for both design and construction. 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 and complexity to this solicitation including but not limited to industrial archives/records storage/warehouse construction experience, full building demolition experience, Certified Shielded Enclosure installation experience, and working within secure facilities (e.g., restricted site access, vetting of employees, clear background checks, security coordination/escorting) it may result in a higher relevancy rating which may lead to a higher confidence assessment. Projects of a 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 Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach for the design and construction of this project and its capability to execute an awarded contract with a cohesive and collaborative team that possesses design and construction excellence. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined technical / risk rating for Phase I Factor 2.

The Offeror’s narrative shall consider the summarized scope of work information provided in the solicitation.

The narratives shall addresses the elements identified in paragraphs 2.3 in sufficient detail to demonstrate management capabilities. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraphs 2.3 which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration. If the narratives do not address the above requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. RATING METHOD

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…