B.08.03 Solicitation Amendment W912DR21R0009 0003.pdf

W912DR21R0009

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 for this amendment is to extend the due date for RFI questions to 3 June 2022, to advertise a second site-visit and to extend the bid submission date to 29 June 2022. See the Summary of Changes for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-May-2022

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 W912DR21R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Apr-2022

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 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

24-May-2022

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 27-May-2022 02:00 PM to 29-Jun-2022 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

SECOND SITE VISIT

There will be a second site visit for interested offerors on Wednesday June 1, 2022 at 9:00am at:

Washington Aqueduct 5900 MacArthur Blvd NW Washington DC 20016

Individuals interested in attending the site visit MUST submit their Name, Company Name, Date of Birth, Driver's License Number and issuing State to Nina Hallissy by email at Nina.r.hallissy@usace.army.mil no later than 2:00 p.m. on the business day before the site visit in order to be admitted to the site.

Upon arriving for the site visit, individuals will be required to show their Driver’s License. Individuals who do not have a driver's license will need to submit the information from a government issued ID (State or Federal) and be prepared to show that ID upon arrival.

The following have been modified:

SITE VISIT INFORMATION

There will be a site visit for interested offerors on Monday, May 23 at 9:00am at:

Washington Aqueduct 5900 MacArthur Blvd NW Washington DC 20016

Individuals interested in attending the site visit MUST submit their Name, Company Name, Date of Birth, Driver's License Number and issuing State to Nina Hallissy by email at Nina.r.hallissy@usace.army.mil no later than 2:00 p.m. on the business day before the site visit in order to be admitted to the site.

Upon arriving for the site visit, individuals will be required to show their Driver’s License. Individuals who do not have a driver's license will need to submit the information from a government issued ID (State or Federal) and be prepared to show that ID upon arrival.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been added by full text:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REVISED

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

REVISED

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. General: This solicitation seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for award under the competitive $8M Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC). This acquisition will result in the award of a $8M contract over 5 years. Offerors responding to this solicitation are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained herein. Failure to submit all items detailed in section 1.3 will result in a non-responsive determination.

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 solicitation 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 Offerors will be selected based on the “Best Overall Value to the Government”.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make the best value determination based on a comparative assessment of technical proposals against all source selection criteria. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the non-price factors.

The evaluation factors applicable to this procurement appear below:

Factor 1 - Past Performance in Relevant Projects

Factor 2 - Management Approach

Factor 3 - Sample Project - Technical Approach

Factor 4 - Price

Factor 5 - Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP)

Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors. Evaluation factors 1 through 3 and 5 are equally important. When combined, Factors 1 through 3 and 5 are more important than Factor 4.

1.3. Offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes:

a. Volume I – Technical Proposal (Factors 1 through 3)

b. Volume II – Price Proposal (Factor 4)

c. Volume III – Administrative Documents

d. Volume IV- Small Business Participation Plan (Factor 5)

Electronic Requirement - All Offerors must provide electronic copies of their proposal in searchable .pdf format submitted to Vincent Gier at Vincent.j.gier@usace.army.mil, via DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/ no later than 29 June 2022 at 2:00 PM. Offerors must request a DoD SAFE upload code from Vincent Gier at Vincent.j.gier@usace.army.mil, no later than five (5) business days prior to the closing date.

Failure to submit the correct information will result in rejection of the proposal prior to evaluation.

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via email to Vincent Gier at Vincent.j.gier@usace.army.mil no later than 3 June 2022 at 11:00 AM.

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

1.4. Specific Requirements: An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and material submitted in writing in response to this solicitation. The submission of false or misleading information shall be grounds for disqualification of the proposal. Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. Each volume must have a table of contents. 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 through 3): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 2, below. The information must be organized as follows:

- Factor 1 Past Performance in Relevant Projects Factor 2 Management Approach Factor 3 Sample Project – Technical Approach

The total number of pages must not exceed 40 pages in the aggregate. Offerors may distribute the pages among the Factors at their discretion. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) after page 40 will not be evaluated .

1.4.2 Volume II (Price Proposal) (Factor 4): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 2, below. It must contain the following:

a. SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award);

b. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

c. Price Schedule (the SATOC overhead & profit, and the SATOC escalation rates for the contract duration);

d. Price schedule for Sample Project

e. Audit/Financial Statement

f. Section 00600

g. A copy of ORCA statements.

1.4.3. Volume III (Administrative Documents): The Administrative Documents must be placed in a separate volume.

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 00600.

d. Provide current single and aggregate bonding capability.

1.4.4. Volume IV (Small Business Participation Plan) (Factor 5)

1.5. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, via DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1442, Block 13. Offeror proposals received after the required time and date deadlines will not be evaluated.

2. VOLUME I – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, FACTORS 1 through 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a joint venture or a partnership, the "Prime Offeror" past performance can come from any of the entities that are part of the joint venture or partnership.

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), past performance 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.

2.1. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. 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 no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original solicitation issuance date. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the same date range will also be considered. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled “PAST PERFORMANCE 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 should be in the same format as the form. Each project description must include all information included on Attachment A.

Task orders on ID/IQ or equivalent contracts can also be submitted under Factor 1; however, each task order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor. Submissions of multiple task orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

2.1.1. PAST PERFORMANCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: The Offeror shall submit information on no more than ten (10) completed projects. Each project must comply with the teaming agreement requirements in paragraph 2, the date requirements in paragraph 2.1, be of relevant scope and complexity and demonstrate a minimum completion value of $250,000 considering adjustment for escalation from project completion to 2022. 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.

At least three (3) projects must clearly demonstrate the Prime Offeror’s performance as a Prime contractor in a construction project.

Similar contracts may include construction projects in a variety of sizes, a variety of construction disciplines, varying degrees of technical complexity.

The Offeror may submit individual task orders from IDIQ or equivalent contracts; however, each must be completed and meet the minimum requirements of the factor and paragraph 2 above. Indicate whether each task order is from a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) or Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC).

If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of ten completed projects, the additional project(s) will not be evaluated.

Each project must clearly be labeled as new construction or renovation.

Relevant Projects must include at least three (3) or more of the following elements:

Projects with detailed phasing, sequencing and staging requirements to maintain full operation of existing facilities during construction

Experience working on with both non-military and military construction in a high-security environment.

Modification or upgrade of mechanical equipment within a complex water treatment plant or other operations.

Rehabilitation, modification, upgrades and renovations of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and systems, and building automated systems (BAS).

Rehabilitation, modification, upgrades and renovations of industrial mechanical equipment to include compressors, pumps and motors.

Repair or replacement of replacing water mains, sluice gates and valves Installation, repair or modification of sprinklers and fire alarm systems.

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 Offeror is encouraged to highlight unique capabilities as part of the project discussions and to demonstrate a variety of project types.

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

Each element must have a description of how it meets the requirement (ex. AT/FP – For this project, regulation stand-off distances were used, bollards were installed, blast resistant windows were 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.

2.1.2. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR RELEVANT PROJECTS:

Formal performance evaluations shall be provided on the projects submitted in response to Section 2.1.1 above. The Offeror must request that their client complete the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for Relevant Projects (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-0 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 for PAST PERFORMANCE 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 not 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), or other databases; 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 an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the past performance confidence rating will be considered unknown/neutral confidence.

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

2.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The intent of this factor is for the Offeror to describe their management approach to this SATOC. The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially, to facilitate evaluation.

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 1.1, while also providing the rationale for the selection of this approach to the solicited contract.

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

Offerors are encouraged to provide a discussion within this section on how the past experience/performance of individual team members on similar projects will increase the success on the solicited SATOC.

2.2.1. Contract/Task Order Management:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative discussing its previous experience with IDIQ type contracts (MATOC/SATOC) and/or previous projects and must include each of the following:

The Offeror shall include discussions on how the home office staff will support the overall contract management. Discussion shall include management aspects specific to the solicited work, such as the roles and responsibilities of small business and any affiliate team members, the dedicated management staff assigned to this contract (i.e. Project Manager, Project Executive, Superintendent, etc.).

The Offeror shall address how they will approach the management, schedule and resourcing of multiple, concurrent projects/task orders in different locations.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative on the individual team members required for every task order both at the home office and onsite levels; and how these team members will be leveraged across the contract.

The Offeror shall address management of individual task orders.

The Offeror shall discuss cost savings techniques the firm would utilize when managing multiple task orders at a single installation. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this approach was a success and how this approach will benefit the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

The Offeror shall include how it plans to coordinate and select subcontractors throughout the Baltimore District area of responsibility.

The Offeror shall describe how the project teams, to include the subcontractors and the Government, will communicate with each other to achieve results.

The Offeror shall identify trades typically self-performed.

In considering design-build task orders, the Offeror shall discuss the start to finish process to include the

Offeror’s role and involvement. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this process was a success and how this process will benefit the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

The Offeror shall discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process.

As most projects may require quick turnaround, the Offeror shall describe how the Offeror would streamline the process of receipt of task order requirements to award. The Offeror shall discuss projects/task orders from Factor 1 where this process was a success and how this will be a benefit to the Government. The project information submitted for these specific projects under Factor 1 may be utilized in the evaluation of this factor.

2.2.2 Contract/Task Order Team:

a. The Offeror must submit an organizational chart identifying the proposed management team for the SATOC with specific individuals named that will execute this SATOC at an overall management and task order level.

This organizational chart must include the following:

The Offeror’s key personnel that will manage the SATOC.

In the case of an Offeror utilizing individuals from affiliates as key personnel, the affiliate company must be identified in the chart with the individual’s name.

2.3. FACTOR 3 – SAMPLE PROJECT - TECHNICAL APPROACH: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability.

2.3.1. Project Narrative: The Offeror must provide a start-to-finish narrative identifying and describing how the critical elements identified in the schedule shall be completed in accordance with the solicitation specifications. This narrative shall include the expected roles of the Offeror’s personnel, subcontractors, affiliates (if app.) and the government in making the proposed schedule achievable.

2.3.2. Pre-Award Project Schedule: The Offeror shall provide a schedule showing the sequence of the work in order to meet the definition of construction required completion within the maximum number of days described in FAR clause 52.211-10. The schedule must demonstrate a reasonable approach and understanding of the requirements of this project. The schedule shall be task oriented indicating the number of calendar days from notice to proceed, by which deliverables are to be achieved.

The Offeror shall use a critical path method graphically represented in the schedule. The schedule shall show the critical path, adequate detail, logic and sequences to demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the required completion date. Period of performance is considered to be NTP to project completion to include completion of punch list items.

The Offeror shall provide an executable file (preferably P6 Version 7.0 or later) for technical evaluation. The evaluation will be performed by a construction schedule specialist using analytic software to provide information to evaluate the appropriateness, accuracy and completeness of the schedule.

2.4 VOLUME II – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA FACTOR 4 – PRICE PROPOSAL

The offeror will provide overhead and profit rates as well as construction task order level personnel rates for the Sample Project. The Offeror will also provide their planned overhead and profit rates as well as construction task order level personnel rates for the base year and subsequent years and escalation factors.

2.5 VOLUME IV – MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

PLAN

All offerors (both small and large businesses) are required to provide a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP).

Offerors should propose and discuss the level of participation of small business subcontractors in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives set forth in the evaluation criteria. Any teaming agreements provided under this section doesn’t have any page limits.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME Offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime { } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU) or { } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a { } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) { } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) { } Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply Small Business (SB):

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

(c) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.) Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part19, as subcontractors. Documentation validating business relationships described must be submitted. Demonstrating proof of enforceable commitments is to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones.

(d) See the Evaluation Approach to address the Offeror’s compliance with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and

52.219- 9 and respond accordingly.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA (Factors 1 through 5)

3.1. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate the minimum requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate experience in relevant projects, as stated in paragraphs 2 2.1 above as well as required on Attachment A and Attachment B.

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 submitted for projects that have met the minimum requirements of Factor 1 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, completion within six (6) years and/or not 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.”

3.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this solicitation if the narrative contains contract specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraph

2.3 in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of and practical approach to managing the SATOC and the task orders under it. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

3.3 FACTOR 3 – SAMPLE PROJECT - TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this solicitation if the narrative consists of a contract specific discussion on the significant features of the work of this solicitation that addresses the elements identified in paragraph 9.2 in sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that will lead to successful completion of all task orders within the contract duration.

An evaluation of the executable schedule will be performed by a construction schedule specialist using analytic software to provide information to evaluate the appropriateness, accuracy, and completeness of the schedule.

Failure to provide an executable file may lead to an “unacceptable” performance rating for Factor 3.

3.4 FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL

The Price Evaluation Committee (PEC) will perform a price analysis of the proposal, including the Offeror’s overhead and profit rates as well as construction task order level personnel rates for the Sample Project. The Offeror will also provide their planned overhead and profit rates as well as construction task order level personnel rates for the base year and for subsequent years and escalation factors. The Sample Project pricing will be evaluated in comparison to the IGE. The Contractor’s Surety Letter or Bondability Letter for the sample project and the overall contract will be evaluated for adequacy by the PEC.

3.5 FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) regardless of size status shall address their planned small business usage for this requirement and will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1. Proposal Compliance Review: The proposal compliance review will ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical proposals have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose per the solicitations small business set aside. An Offeror’s failure to provide all of the requested information may adversely affect the evaluation or result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.

4.2. Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1 through 3) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below. Offerors submitting proposals for this project 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. Factors 1 through 3 are equally important.

Factor 1 - Past Performance in Relevant Projects Factor 2 - Management Approach Factor 3 - Sample Project – Technical Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following ratings will be used to identify the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s Past Performance. These ratings will be influenced by the relevancy ratings, above, as well as any Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings; information gathered from POCs, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials listed for and associated with the submitted projects; and any awards received for the submitted projects:

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

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

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

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

Unknown/Neutral Confidence – No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The following rating will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor 2 (Management Approach) and Factor 3 (Sample Project – Technical Approach):

OUTSTANDING: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

4.3. Volume II (Price Proposal, Factor 4) of the proposal will be evaluated by a Price Evaluation Committee (PEC) established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be scored. Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques. Prices in an Offeror’s proposal and breakdown among the required CLINs are required to be reasonable for the work to be performed and consistent with relevant elements of the technical proposals and must be deemed fair and reasonable.

4.4 Volume IV (Small Business Participation Plan, Factor 5) The Offeror shall articulate within their SBPP how they intend to meet the small business objectives. Nothing precludes an Offeror from further demonstrating their extent of commitment to use small businesses beyond what has been required by the subject solicitation as articulated below.

Offerors are encouraged to submit proof of awards, accolades, etc., received for their current and/or past support of small businesses. Examples include clear pictures of award(s) received in support of small businesses, successful Small Business Administration Surveillance Review findings, CPARS ratings that address small business utilization, testimonials from customers and/or small business subcontractors in reference to the offerors support to small businesses, etc. Discuss and submit proof of any specific outreach efforts performed in support of this requirement (e.g. holding virtual outreach meetings with potential small business subcontractors, ads within publications,) that demonstrate the Offerors’ effort to identify small business subcontractors specifically in support of this requirement (e.g. roster, attendance sheet, etc.), and proof of any other pertinent information that demonstrates the Offerors’ current and/or past efforts to support small businesses.

Material submitted in support of this factor shall be organized sequentially under applicable tabs and all pages must be numbered to facilitate evaluation. The Small Business Team Evaluation Board (SBTEB) will not look to obtain information in support of an Offeror’s SBPP proposal from other volumes/binders or within the Subcontracting Plan (when applicable). The SBPP (IAW DFARS PGI 215.304) and the subcontracting plan (IAW DFARS PGI 219.705-

4) are two distinct separate documents with different elements and should not be combined for submission. Offerors shall respond to requirements listed below and must also provide the information requested within the SBPP Proposal Format for submissions. Offerors submitting SBPP for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of plans.

Reminder – Offerors must comply with all elements stated within the Evaluation Approach and must also provide the information requested/identified within the SBPP Proposal Format.

Small Business Participation Plan Objectives: The Government will evaluate: The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

The Small Business Team will review the firms specifically identified by the Offeror using section (b) of the SBPP Proposal Format. Note: Small Business subcontractors identified within the SBPP shall and must be used to support this requirement considering it is a part of the basis for award. In the event an Offeror needs to change a proposed small business subcontractor the offeror must seek and gain permission form the Contracting Officer to do so and must replace the subcontractor with another small business of the same socioeconomic type.

The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones).

Note: Describe what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non- enforceable, joint ventures, mentor-protégé, teaming agreements, partnership letters of commitment(s), etc.). Provide documentation regarding commitments to small business for this effort. Copies of such agreements should be provided as part of your small business participation plan and will not count against the page limitation for this volume.

Note: Supporting enforceable commitments must: (1) be with a small business, (2) includes the socioeconomic type of the small business and the services/supplies to be provided e.g. ABC Company, a WOSB, will provide commissioning, (3) be specific to the subject requirement by indicating the solicitation number, and (4) include legible signature blocks and signatures from BOTH parties acknowledging the business relationship. SB firms identified within an enforceable commitment must also be listed within section (b) and identified within section (c) of the SBPP Proposal Format.

Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

Offerors must identify supplies/services to be performed by small businesses that are considered complex/meaningful elements of the requirement. Use section (b) of the SBPP Proposal Format to identify such supplies and services.

The past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Note: Compliance of FAR 52.219-8 applies to ALL Offerors to include small businesses. All Offerors shall submit information substantiating their past performance in complying with FAR Clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business,” maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors.

Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offeror’s past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219- 8 shall certify the same.

Note: Compliance of FAR 52.219-9 applies to large business Offerors only.

Offerors shall submit their Commercial Subcontracting Plan and also their last Summary Subcontracting Reports (formally known as SF 295s)

Letters of commendation from local, state or federal customers about the Offerors’ use and/or support of small businesses

Correspondence from small business subcontractors that acknowledge support

SBA Compliance Reviews, Defense Contract Management Agency Small Business Subcontracting Program Reviews, etc., if applicable

Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-9 must state so.

The Small Business Participation Plan Factor Ratings, described below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s quote. Those plans containing greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments. Those plans containing binding commitments will be given greater credit than non-binding arrangements.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Factor 5

OUTSTANDING: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

GOOD: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

MARGINAL: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

4.5. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) evaluations against the solicitation to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation. The SSEB may review any proposal but does not compare one proposal against another.

The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the SSA with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival ratings for each factor and their supporting rationale, brief the SSA and prepare any necessary items for analysis.

4.6. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider Factors 1 and 2 to select the most highly qualified Offerors (not to exceed five).

4.7. Communications with Offerors: The Government reserves the right to communicate with Offerors if it is deemed necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If communications are necessary, the Contracting Officer will limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

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

5.0. SUBMISSION DEFINITIONS

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

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

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

Confidence Assessment is the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the procuring contracting officer’s (PCO) written notification to the Offeror for purposes of…