B.08.03_Amendment 0001 W912DR20R0016.pdf

W912DR20R0016

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to delete attachment “Statement_of_Work 18OCT19” and to include attachment “A.02.16 Revised Scope of Work 8 April 2020 RDF ROOF - Phase 1”, and to revise Scope of Work language in section 00 20 00 “Instructions for Procurement”, and to revise Section 00 21 16 “Instructions to Proposers” and to change the Request for Information due date from 11:00 AM EST 17 April 2020 to 11:00 AM EST 24 April 2020. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 40

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Apr-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 W912DR20R0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Apr-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 is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

10-Apr-2020

CODE

USACE BALTIMORE

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:

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization below has been added:

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

2 HOPKINS PLAZA 03-B-07

BALTIMORE MD 21201

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

The following have been modified:

SCOPE OF WORK

Scope of Work

The RDF is a single story cast-in-place concrete warehouse structure constructed in 2000 with a combination of two-way flat slab construction and beam-slab construction supported by concrete columns and bearing walls. The roof structure was designed to incorporate a deep soil vegetative roof inclusive of one (1) to four (4) feet of soil depth. The RDF structure was not originally designed with the intent of landing helicopters on the roof, but was converted into that purpose in 2004 with the construction of a helipad. The RDF roof helipad supports helicopter landing, takeoff and parking on its north end and on green parade fields down its center. The objectives of this project are as follows:

Retrofit and convert the RDF roof helipad within the Work Area into a helicopter landing and operations facility – a heliport facility – meeting all applicable codes (including building and environmental codes and permits), standards, regulations, and with the structural and non-structural retrofits to support the landings, takeoffs, and parking of the Government specified helicopter types and the operations of vehicles that support helicopter operations (herein referred to as Helicopter-Support-Vehicles) at particular locations along the roof of the RDF structure. The conversion must not compromise the operation of existing non-structural systems nor the structural integrity of the existing RDF structure.

The programmatic requirements to provide structural integrity and operational functionality along the Work Area of the RDF roof are as follows:

o Group H-60 helicopter landings and operations in the Green Parade field helipad immediately to the south of the PCC helipad. The Group H-60 collection of helicopters includes, at a minimum, the following H-60 type helicopters and select smaller/lighter helicopters: AH-1W, AH-1Z, UH-1N, UH-1Y, H-3, CH-46E, MH- 60S, MH-60R, SH-60B, SH-60F, VH-60N, LH-72 Lakota, and VH92A.

o Group MV-22 and Group H-60 helicopter landings and operations in the PCC helipad. The helicopters included in Group MV-22 are as follows: MV-22, and CH- 47.

o Helicopter Support Vehicles (e.g. fire suppression and other vehicles) in all accessible portions of the Work Area, not just those portions within the permissible landing zone.

Retrofit the RDF structure within the Work Area to support code-prescribed live and dead loads for the occupancy and use defined in these technical requirements for the Work Area.

The Design-Build Contractor shall consider the RDF roof to be an “Assembly” area with a minimum uniform live load of 100 psf. The Design-Build Contractor may also consider reducing the overburden load on the structure subject to approval by the Government.

Strengthen and retrofit the RDF superstructure within the Work Area to support the landings, takeoffs, and general operational activities of the Group H-60 and Group MV-22 helicopters and helicopter-support-vehicles within the Work Area. Strengthening is intended to achieve Group MV-22 landings at the main PCC helipad and Group H-60 landings in the northern most green parade field. The DB Contractor may also consider reducing the magnitude and extent of roof strengthening by reducing the existing overburden loads on the structure.

Retrofit the interior and exterior non-structural building systems to support the operational capabilities of an in-service heliport facility. These retrofits include the redesign, repair, and renovation to building features/elements that include, but are not limited to the following: exterior site, environmental, air traffic control, electrical, lighting, architecture including interior partitions and ceilings, and fire and life safety. The project includes replacement of and improvements to all hardscape, landscaping, overburden, irrigation, drainage, stone cladding, and waterproofing in areas of work. The Design-Build Contractor is responsible for determining all disciplines necessary to complete the design and construction per all technical requirements.

Demolish the existing fence around the helipad primary surface and replace it by designing and constructing a safety net following the criteria in UFC 3-260-01 dated 4 February 2019.

Demolish the four (4) existing intercom locations on the RDF roof, and install four (4) new permanent intercoms on the RDF roof, with the new intercoms to be installed on the northern vertical face of the existing raised limestone retaining walls.

Demolish the three (3) existing fire plugs currently located in the work area on the RDF roof, and install three (3) new fire plugs in the same locations. The new fire plugs shall be installed flush with the RDF roof finished grade.

Demolish the existing staircase railing, located at the northern end of the RDF roof. Install frangible staircase railing in its place.

Install 12 new, evenly-spaced, curb-mounted obstruction lights along the edge of the RDF roof.

The Design-Build Contractor/Designer of Record shall ensure that the final design is within the authorized scope of work and provides for a complete and usable facility.

As required by ECB 2016-11 and ER 110-345-700, the design analysis must include detailed calculations documenting that the scope of the design is within the authorized scope of the project.

The Design-Build Contractor/Designer of Record shall be responsible for all coordination and approval of the project with regional authorities having jurisdiction: National Capital Planning Commission

(NCPC), Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources

The RDF is to remain operational throughout the design and construction. The Design-Build Contractor shall reroute utilities and services that are impacted by the structural work.

The Contractor shall be responsible to maintain all life safety systems and egress requirements throughout the design and construction.

All work shall be accomplished in accordance with EM 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements

Manual (2014).

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This request for proposal (“RFP”) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for construction of the Pentagon Remote Delivery Facility (RDF) and Helipad at Pentagon Reservation, Arlington, VA.

Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this Section 00 21 16. This is Phase I of a two-phase RFP. This RFP is requesting submission of proposals under Phase I submission criteria ONLY. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the contracting officer will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit proposals for Phase II. The maximum number of Offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed five (5).

Offerors shall not submit any proposals under Phase II submission criteria at this time. Phase II of the solicitation will be issued in an amendment directly to those Offerors selected for Phase II. Submitting any information under Phase II criteria may lead to disqualification of your proposal. This is an Unrestricted competitive RFP. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this Section 00 21 16.

The objective of this project is to retrofit and convert the RDF roof helipad system into a helipad facility that sustains safe operations (landing, takeoff, and parking) of the fleet of military helicopters identified in the technical requirements, and the applicable emergency support vehicles, and do so without compromising the structural integrity of the RDF structure. In addition to structural strengthening, exterior site, environmental, air traffic control, electrical, drainage, backfill, waterproofing, and irrigation system adjustments are required to sustain RDF roof helipad safe operation. The implementation of the structural strengthening work will minimally impact occupied spaces below the roof including, Architectural, HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire Alarm, Communications and Fire Suppression systems.

1.2. Basis For Award: A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA). While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value and most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

PHASE I

Factor 1 - Past Performance/Experience

Factor 2 - Management Capability

For Phase I, Past Performance/Experience and Management Capability will be adjectivally rated. Past Performance/Experience is more important than Management Capability. Factors 1 and 2 will not carry into Phase

II.

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

PHASE II

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

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

For Phase I, Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

For Phase II, Factors 3 and 4 will be adjectivally rated. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4 and when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 5 (Price).

1.1. Source Selection: It is intent of the Government to seek proposals from qualified Offerors with experience in the significant features of this RFP and who can demonstrate a successful performance history in completing relevant projects. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Trade-Off Process. The successful Offeror will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government”. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted.

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

1.2. 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), (electronic file)

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

*Note: Electronic submission instructions are outlined in section 1.5, below.

1.3. 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 identified for each volume. 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 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.

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

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Past Performance/Experience TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Capability

The total number of pages must not exceed 30 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing in Factor 1 behind the tab/blank page for 2.2.2 relating to past performance evaluations and awards, are not counted in the overall page limitation. Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 30 will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in count).

1.3.2. Volume II (Administrative Documents): The Administrative Documents must be placed in a separate file.

It must contain the following:

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

b. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

c. Section 00 45 00;

d. Proof of Bonding Capability of at least $20,000,000;

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

1.4. Proposal shall include with the Offeror’s name, Solicitation Number, and the solicitation Closing Time and Date.

(See SF1442 Block 1 and Block 13)

1.5. https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Qiana Bowman-Spencer at qiana.l.bowman-spencer@usace.army.mil. Both Phases of the procurement shall be submitted via the above link.

ALL PROPOSALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE SAFE SITE. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2 GB). If you have a large number of files, it is recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Qiana Bowman-Spencer at qiana.l.bowman-spencer@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for a request code five (5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission. THIS MUST BE DONE FOR BOTH PHASES OF THE PROCUREMENT.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to the recipient you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

Submission shall be in searchable Adobe PDF format and legible.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

1. Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC, the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

2. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for the recipient. For this solicitation, the recipient is the Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is qiana.l.bowman-spencer@usace.army.mil. The E-Mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the E-Mail address for the Contract Specialist After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipient you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipient until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A Proposer can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

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.

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this solicitation, the prime contractor must have completed at least fifty percent (50%) of the total number of projects that meet the requirements for Factor 1 for consideration in response to the experience requirements of this solicitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.1. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects completed design-build projects. If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of five completed projects, then the additional project(s) will not be evaluated.

These projects must be of relevant scope and complexity and have either a minimum project size of 70,000

Square Foot (SF) or demonstrate a minimum completion value of $11,000,000 considering adjustment for escalation from project completion to 2020 (all escalation values are to be labeled as escalated and the Offeror must explain in detail their escalation rationale, which must include any formulas, calculations, assumptions, etc.) and address the discussions requested on Attachment A while meeting the teaming agreement requirements in section 2 above. The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under this factor. All projects must have a constructions completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects that have a Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) within the same date range will also be considered.

*Note: In reference to Task Order Construction Contracts (TOCCs)/Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: Task orders/delivery orders on TOCCs and/or ID/IQ contracts can also be submitted under Factor 1; however, each task/delivery order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor.

Submissions of multiple task/delivery orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

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

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

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

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

At least one (1) project must demonstrate experience coordinating with Washington Headquarters

Services (WHS), the National Capital Planning Committee (NCPC), the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and/or the Virginia State Department of Historic resources (SHPO), Experience constructing rooftop helipads, Experience designing to airfield requirements, Experience in roof waterproof installation and remediation, Experience with high rise steel and concrete construction, Experience performing construction/renovation within occupied/functioning and secured government buildings, Experience with green roofs, Experience in complex site traffic management operations, and Historic Preservation.

*Lists, charts/matrices and bullets will not be accepted when identifying relevant elements.

Each element must have a description of how the project meets the element (e.g. concrete paving – For this project, 500 LF of concrete sidewalks were installed, 300LF of curbs were removed and re-installed, etc.).

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.

The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled “EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” (Attachment A). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposal and should be in the same format as the form. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

The only submissions under the tab/blank page for this section are to be the completed “Attachment A” forms or similar format as indicated above. Only the information provided in either of these formats will be considered. Company summaries/introductions, project summary charts/matrices, etc. will not be accepted or evaluated.

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

The Offeror must request that their client complete the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for Relevant Experience (Form PPQ-0) (Attachment B) and submit the questionnaire as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the Offeror must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated project and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date. Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ-0 (Attachment B) for projects submitted under the tab/blank page for EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Previously completed PPQ-0s may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other solicitations. Submitted PPQ-0s must only reference this solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings will be accepted in lieu of PPQ-0s.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The information obtained from these sources will be evaluated supplementary to the past performance questionnaires. In reference to the contracts pulled from these sources, the relevancy of the projects, completion dates, ratings and comments in the individual categories and overall ratings will be considered in making the overall confidence assessment.

The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror (Copies of awards must be included under this factor for validation.).

Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).)

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2.3. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs/blank pages for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation.

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

It is the intent of the Government to receive proposals that clearly define and demonstrate the Offerors’ response to this factor with regard to the requested information, and considering the project information provided in Section A, while also providing the rationale for the selection of this approach to the solicited project.

2.3.1. Describe the proposed management structure for the team to include both the construction and design firms, the resources and how the resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities, and what subcontracting firms the Offeror is considering utilizing. Offerors are encouraged to describe prior experience working with their proposed designer.

The Offerors must also provide a statement that, in accordance with the specifications of the RFP, all individuals, including subcontractors, shall be US Citizens.

Note: The Offerors down selected to Phase II will be required to identify the specific firms chosen for structural, mechanical, fire protection, and electrical/communications installation in the Phase II proposal.

2.3.2. Describe how subcontractors are managed by the contractor to include flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities and coordination. Discuss how non-performance by subcontractors is handled by the general contractor.

2.3.3. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, design quality control, tracking design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule, management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

2.3.4. Describe the Offeror’s understanding of the challenges, risks and technical approach with respect to construction/renovation of rooftop helipads on existing buildings; and coordinating with other outside contractors in order to successfully complete work on the same project. The Offeror shall provide a narrative to address the plan to proactively mitigate these challenges and risks on the solicited project. Describe the Offeror’s familiarity with Government approval procedures and knowledge of Federal and standard codes.

Describe the Offeror’s experience with installing carbon fiber reinforcement in a variety of structural configurations, including slabs with waterproof top soil overburden, and columns; and work at heights over 14 feet. Describe Designer of Record’s experience with SAFE FEA structural modeling software for stress analysis.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

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

3.2. FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE/EXPERIENCE: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements for experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraph 2.2. above.

Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government. That is, projects that are considered to be non-relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, percentage completion within five (5) years, responses to the Attachment A, or not meeting the teaming requirements established in section 2.2.1. (submitted under Factor 1) and demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the work.

More relevant projects and high past performance evaluations will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Higher confidence assessments will be given for higher past performance evaluation ratings.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

3.3. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is a project specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraphs 2.3. in sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraphs 2.3. which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration. If projects do not address the above requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

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

4.2. Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1-2) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the 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 through 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

Factor 1 - Past Performance/Experience Factor 2 - Management Capability

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

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

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

4.3. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The SSEB will review the Technical Proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Authority with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale, for each Offeror (in phase II); brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion.

4.4. Phase I Down Select: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors submitted the proposal that represents the best value to the Government for this project. The SSA will compare the proposals to determine the offers that represent the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. The selection process is complex and depending upon the evaluation factors, the SSA may exercise a significant degree of judgment in selecting the Offerors. The adjectival ratings assigned by the evaluation team are labels and not the sole basis for proposal comparison. The SSA will not base his/her decision merely on the adjectival ratings or the comparative analysis and recommendations, which compares the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals, but shall exercise independent judgment. It is the Government’s intention to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase I to Phase II.

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

5. PHASE II

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

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

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

Factor 3 - Technical/Approach Factor 4- Small Business Participation Plan

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

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

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

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

Factor 5 - Price

If the Offeror cannot provide a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR 52.228-1, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered valid for this solicitation.

6. SUBMISSION DEFINITIONS

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as "PPIRS or FAPIIS."

Best Value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) is the point at which the customer determines the facility or area can be occupied from both a regulatory and work function standpoint.

Building Gross Square Foot (BGSF) is the floor area of the entire building or project, which includes floor area occupied by rooms/spaces, walls, corridors, conveyances, mechanical/utility rooms, and shafts.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to…