W912DR22R0009 AMENDMENT 0002_11FEB2022.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise section 00 21 16. The changes associated w ith this amendment are in red. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Feb-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 W912DR22R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jan-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 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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Feb-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:

W912DR22R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL PROVISIONS - PHASE 1

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a competitive acquisition for the award of a single award task order contract. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government in Phase I and II. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation with appropriate consideration given to the five evaluation factors: Experience and Past Performance, Management Approach, Seed Project Technical Approach, Small Business Participation Plan and Price. (AM0001)

PHASE I

Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the request for proposal (RFP) in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

Factor 1 Experience and Past Performance

Factor 2 Management Approach

Factors 1 and 2 are in descending order of importance. A target of three offerors, but no more than five will advance to Phase 2.

PHASE II

Factor 3 Seed Project Technical Approach

Factor 1 Experience and Past Performance (Advanced from Phase I)

Factor 2 Management Approach (Advanced from Phase I)

Factor 4 Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 5 Price: Seed Project Price Schedules

When combined all non-price factors are approximately equal to price.

Phase II factors are listed in descending order of importance. The order of importance for the non-price factors are as follows: Factor 3, Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 4.

This means that Factor 3 is the most important factor and Factor 4 is the least important factor.

Trade-Off Analysis: After all the evaluations have been completed, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will consider all factors to determine which offeror submitted the proposal that represents the "best value" to the Government for this project.

It is the intent of the Government to award up to three MILCON project task orders upon award of this IDIQ, or within three months thereafter. The three projects will be evaluated in Phase 2 of this solicitation:

Site R – Consolidated Maintenance Complex: Construct a building for maintenance, environmental, and logistical functions to include maintenance bays, administrative space, indoor vehicle wash bay, and storage area with all associated interior utility, communications, and intrusion detection requirements.

Construction cost limit is $17M.

Site R – Public Works Operation Support Facility: Construct a new building for vehicle and equipment maintenance, outside communications maintenance, and administrative activities. This project will also include parking, water distribution and storage, storm water system, erosion control measures, electrical, and communications services. Construction cost limit is $18M.

Site C – Force Protection Perimeter Enhancements: Construct perimeter security fencing in accordance with requirements for Nuclear Command and Control Facilities to include chain-link fencing, fence lighting, electrical distribution, and security equipment pathways. Construction cost limit is $7M.

In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, a tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406 -- Documentation.

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a single award task order contract (SATOC). This will be a competitive unrestricted Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order Contract. The resultant contract will have a five-year period of performance with a maximum contract capacity of $100,000,000.00.

1.2. The award will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract that will be funded per task order. Task orders may be either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build. The individual projects will be a variety of construction types from mechanical and electrical to new construction. The task orders will range in size and complexity from small to large and from non-complex to highly technical. Projects may be classified or unclassified.

1.3. Further details regarding this project include the following: A broad variety of major and minor repair, modifications, renovations, rehabilitation, alterations, Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build and construction projects in a Secure Environment to include working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) in support of customers in the WHS/RRMC. The work will consist of new facility design and construction, site structures and utilities/fence installations, fuel distribution systems, asbestos/lead abatement/renovation, heating ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) upgrades and repairs; electrical upgrades and repairs; direct digital control & network upgrades and repairs; security doors & windows;

structural strengthening; interior fit-ups. Work typically involves hazardous material abatement plan, quality control, removal and disposal. Work may also include geo-technical investigation; exterior upgrades and repairs; utilities; hydrant; traffic & street light; security barricades; roadwork; other force protection (AT/FP); etc. type projects associated with campus organization existing buildings and grounds.

The prime contractor will be responsible for integrating, managing, and executing all aspects of the design, and construction ordered under this contract.

The geographic area for this contract is anticipated to be for services located within the Maryland and

Pennsylvania areas. These locations are in remote mountainous areas and access can be difficult. The sites have a very rocky terrain, frequently with steep slopes. Some project locations will be underground. As indicated above, the locations are in two separate states with differing Authorities Having Jurisdictions (AHJ) for various permitting and approval functions. Winter weather can be extreme and very unpredictable. Work performed may be either in secure or non-secure sites.

The Contractor will be required to respond rapidly to Government requirements with outstanding professionalism and top-quality craftsmanship, without compromising safety standards, current mission requirements, and readiness. It is imperative that the Contractor provide a flexible and multi-disciplined work force. Work to be accomplished may be in areas where classified Secret operations are conducted. It is mandatory that the Contractor maintain a balanced work force of cleared Secret personnel to work in such areas. Also, it is mandatory that the prime contractor has and maintains an active Secret Facility Site Clearance for the life of the contract.

1.4 The Government will utilize the two-phase selection procedures as described in FAR 36.3. The

Government will target three contractors for Phase II but may select up to five contractors. Only those offerors who receive a written notification from the Procuring Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. Those offerors selected for Phase II will be provided the Phase II solicitation and submission requirements. Offerors that are not selected to participate in Phase II will be notified and may request a pre-award or post-award debrief.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

c. Electronic Requirement - In addition to the written binder requirement, all Offerors must provide an electronic copy of their proposal in .pdf format on a compact disc (CD). (The electronic copy shall be one file per volume that is an exact color copy of the hard, original proposal).

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

The content of these volumes is discussed in section 2.2, below.

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

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

TAB 1 - Factor 1 Experience and Past Performance

TAB 2 - Factor 2 Management Approach

Factor 1 shall not exceed 15 pages, excluding completed CPARS and PPQs. Factor 2 shall not exceed 20 pages, excluding resumes. If the Offeror exceeds the page limitation, then the excess page(s) will not be evaluated (actual tabs are not included in the count).

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

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

b. Completed Representations and Certifications (Section(s) 00 45 00)

c. Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority;

d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL)

e. Statement of Affiliation (SOA)

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

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

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

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

2.5 SPECIAL NOTE: This contract requires the firm to possess, at the time of proposal and the time of award, an active Secret Facility Site Clearance. This requirement is mandatory for the exact entity submitting the proposal. This means that the entity identified in block 14 of the Standard Form 1442 must have the Secret Facility Site Clearance in that name along with the matching Cage Code. In the case of a Joint Venture (JV), it is acceptable that each contractor in the JV has a clearance if the JV itself does not.

It is the intent of the Government to immediately disqualify any offeror that does not possess an active Secret Facility Site Clearance. Any offeror not possessing an active Secret Facility Site Clearance at any time during the proposal process, including during Phase I, Phase II, or at contract award, will be removed from consideration and not awarded the contract.

2.6 Request for Information (RFI) and other technical inquiries relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet (https://www.projnet.org) no later than the date and time indicated in the solicitation. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented in the solicitation and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email.

Another email to the same address will notify the prospective vendor once the reply is available for viewing.

Questions answered in ProjNet are not official until a formal amendment to the solicitation is issued.

3. SUBMISSION CRITERIA

3.1. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE: The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate recency and relevancy.

The Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factor 1. All projects must have a construction completion date within the past six (6) years from the date the Phase I solicitation is issued. Projects that have a date of overall work acceptance within the past six (6) years will also be considered. The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided entitled “EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS” below. Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposals, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposals and shall be in the same format as the form. Each project description must include all information included on the form below. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information.

3.1.1. Experience: The Offeror shall submit information on five (5) projects demonstrating the Offeror’s recent, relevant experience.

1) For all projects, construction must have been completed within the last 6 years from the date the Phase I Solicitation is issued.

2) At least three (3) contracts must be greater than $15M.

3) At least (2) projects will be submitted from the proposed A/E firm in conjunction with the

Prime. (AMD 0002)

4) Offerors should demonstrate experience in the following areas. Each individual project does not have to demonstrate all general experience however, the submitted project portfolio must demonstrate all general experience:

General experience:

a. Site Excavation

b. Electrical and Mechanical systems repair, construction or replacement

c. Structural and foundation systems repair, construction, or replacement

d. Site Utility Infrastructure and Systems repair, construction or replacement

e. Paving, Fencing and other major site renovations/installations

f. Supervisory Control and Data (SCADA) and Energy Management System (EMS)

g. IT Comms and Security Systems Infrastructure

Specialized experience:

h. Asbestos/lead abatement

i. Fuel Distribution and Storage Systems

j. Underground mining type excavation and activities

k. Access Control Points

l. Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) features

m. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) with Electro Magnetic

Radiation (EMR) shielding

n. Work in 24/7/365 mission critical facilities with an uninterrupted mission, maintaining redundancy during construction

o. Work for the Intelligence Community, performing work in a secure compound under security control

The more specialized experience, in conjunction with the general experience, demonstrated over multiple projects may be evaluated as more relevant and lead to a higher confidence rating.

In the case of a joint venture teaming arrangement, each member of the joint venture entity must submit at least two one projects as the construction contractor. Offerors shall address the discussion requested on Attachment A. (AMD 0002)

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

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

3.1.2. Past Performance: For each of the projects submitted in response to Section 3.1.1, provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, and/or a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), completed by a representative of the owner that provides the owner’s opinion of the Offeror’s past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the RFP below is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the owner for each project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact. Organize all Past Performance Information in the same order in which the Projects are submitted.

Submit completed PPQs with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). At the owner's discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Punatoto Taamu, via email at ericka.t.collins@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. If you have questions regarding the PPQs, or require assistance, please contact Ericka Collins at the email above.

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

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

Provide the DUNS number(s) and CAGE code(s) for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, e.g., design firms, key subcontractors, joint venture partners, whose experience is included in this Factor. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

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

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

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

3.2. FACTOR 2 –MANAGEMENT APPROACH

To facilitate evaluation, the offeror should organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs. Submit this information in the form of narratives and an organization chart.

3.2.1. The offeror shall identify the construction portion the offeror intends to self- perform and the items to be subcontracted. The offeror shall discuss its overall organizational structure to manage multiple construction task order projects with differing sizes and complexities and concurrent periods of performance. The offeror shall provide an Organization Chart. The proposed organizational chart shall identify the members or entities of the organization and show the lines of authority and communication of all members of the design and construction entities. The narrative shall state why your team is uniquely qualified to undertake this contract, its approach to design and construction.

3.2.2. This contract may involve a wide variety of construction projects, some of which will be executed in a Design-Build method. The proposal shall discuss how design will be managed and executed throughout the life of this contract. Multiple design firms may be necessary. The names of the design firms shall be included with teaming arrangements. The narrative shall state your design team(s) qualifications, their approach to sustainable design and process of working with the customer(s) during the design and construction phases.

3.2.3. The proposal shall identify key personnel for this SATOC. Key Personnel are required to have a minimum interim secret clearance at the time of the evaluation phases, award of contract, and during contract performance. Key Personnel shall include at minimum: Overall Contract Manager, two Construction Project Managers, two Construction Superintendents, two Estimators, Contract Safety Manager, Contract Quality Control Officer, Architect, Structural Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Project Scheduler, and Fire Protection Engineer. Resumes shall be provided and shall at a minimum include the following:

1. Job Title for this project

2. Number of years with this firm and with other firms

3. Number of years in this position or role

4. Current position and current title in this role

5. Professional Registration (Type and State Registration), if applicable

6. Personnel’s specific experience and qualifications relevant to this project

7. Security Clearance Level

3.2.4. The offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality throughout the contract. Discuss quality management methods proposed throughout the design and construction process. Discuss how you will implement the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program.

3.2.5. The offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their Safety program for the contract and each task order. Discuss the management of multiple projects under $500,000 as well as larger projects in excess of $10,000,000. Include a discussion of the safety risks associated with the RRMC sites and three project descriptions mentioned above. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to EM 385-1-1.

3.2.6. The offeror shall describe how it will manage the design and construction of multiple projects/task orders with concurrent periods of performance. The offeror must discuss its scheduling capabilities and procedures to be used for this contract, which must include schedule updates, incorporating modifications into the schedule, and other steps to be taken to maintain the construction project schedule.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Government desires proposals that offer the best combination of experience considering all criteria. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant corporate experience, including strength and weaknesses of the prime contractor.

Past experience will be rated in terms of how likely there is a performance risk to the Government; that is, high confidence performance ratings will be taken as indicators of a low risk that the offeror will successfully perform the work. The more relevant a proposed contract is, the more weight it will be given in the overall confidence assessment rating. If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the offeror’s past performance is not available, the offeror must state that fact. That offeror may be rated as Unknown Confidence/ Neutral. As stated in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The offeror shall provide information that demonstrates the offeror’s past performance with construction contracts. The Government will evaluate experience on individual contracts and task orders. This should include both design-build and design-bid-build contracts. The offeror shall provide information on five construction contracts with at least three contracts valued at $15 million or greater that have been completed within the past six years from solicitation issue date.

Projects should demonstrate a variety of construction types and methods to assist in evaluating the offeror’s ability and approach to perform work, as described in the Statement of Work, such as, General experience:

a. Site Excavation

b. Electrical and Mechanical systems repair, construction or replacement

c. Structural and foundation systems repair, construction, or replacement

d. Site Utility Infrastructure and Systems repair, construction or replacement

e. Paving, Fencing and other major site renovations/installations

f. Supervisory Control and Data (SCADA) and Energy Management System (EMS)

g. IT Comms and Security Systems Infrastructure

Specialized experience:

a. Asbestos/lead abatement

b. Fuel Distribution and Storage Systems

c. Underground mining type excavation and activities

d. Access Control Points

e. Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) features

f. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) with Electro Magnetic

Radiation (EMR) shielding

g. Work in 24/7/365 mission critical facilities with an uninterrupted mission, maintaining redundancy during construction

h. Work for the Intelligence Community, performing work in a secure compound under security control

Each individual project does not have to demonstrate all general experience however, the submitted project portfolio must demonstrate all general experience. The more specialized experience, in conjunction with the General experience, demonstrated over multiple projects may be evaluated as more relevant and lead to a higher confidence rating 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.

The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources, to include historical knowledge, not provided by the offeror.

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. FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach for the design and construction of this SATOC and its capability to execute an awarded IDIQ with multiple task orders using a cohesive and collaborative team. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined technical / risk rating for Phase I Factor 2.

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

The narratives shall address the elements identified in paragraphs B.3.2 in sufficient detail to demonstrate a successful management approach and management capabilities. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract and understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraphs B.3.2 which will lead to successful completion of all work. The management approach will be evaluated in areas such as, but not limited to, management of multiple simultaneous task order contracts, clear roles/responsibilities of all team members, design management throughout the life of the SATOC, change management, scheduling, risk identification and mitigation. If the narratives do not address the above requirements, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may demonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Additional consideration may be given to a well detailed workplan that is tailored to this solicitation.

D. RATING METHOD

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.

2. Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1-2) of the proposals will be evaluated, by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) as established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), based upon the factors listed below. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. Each factor is rated individually based on the information contained in that specific factor; that is, evaluations will not be made across the factors, nor will information found in one factor be used in the evaluation of another factor. Factors 1 and 2 will be adjectivally rated.

Factor 1 - Experience and Past Performance Factor 2 - Management Approach

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMBINED TECHNICAL / RISK RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

3. Phase I Down Select: After the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider both factors to determine which Offerors are most highly qualified for continuing on to Phase II. The SSA will compare the proposals, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. It is the Government’s intention to select (3) three but may select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to advance from Phase I to Phase II.

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

E. PHASE II

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.

F. 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 establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

Contract Completion is determined to be when all the requirements of a contract are complete including Construction, testing, commissioning, documentation and transfer, and completed forms including claims release documentation.

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 exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

See FAR 15.306(d).

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Rating is the adjective descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding sub factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Source Selection is the process used in competitive, negotiated contracting to select the proposal that offers the best value to the Government.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

G. PROPOSAL FORMS:

Forms recommended to be used in responding to this RFP are provided on the following pages. They are:

Experience in Relevant Projects Past Performance Questionnaire

PHASE I - EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

<<Picture>>

Contractor’s Name (Who performed the work? *include DOR if applicable):

Project Name & Contract No:

Project Location:

City, State

Contract Type: Stand Alone Construction Contract (C-Type) or Task Order on MATOC or SATOC Project Delivery Method: Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, CM@Risk, Early Contractor Involvement, Integrated Design, Design Only, etc.

New Construction or Renovation:

Agency/Government Contracting Activity: Point of contact information (address, PCO name, email address and phone number) If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

Agency/Government Technical Rep. /COR: Point of contact information (email address and phone number). If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number)

Detailed Project Description: General scope and relevance. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal.

Description of the actual work performed by the contractor submitting this project: Describe your company’s role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor, etc.) and level of effort on this project. Be sure to indicate type of work and percentage of work performed by the Offeror or Offeror’s team member.

Detailed Explanation of Relevancy: Explain how the project experience is relevant to the building of a new facility or major renovation that is similar in size and scope described in this request for proposal. Be sure to include specific features of work that make it comparable to the proposed project described in this request for proposal, Problems encountered during performance and solutions to stated problems:

Lessons learned:

BGSF: XXX,XXX Lost Time Accidents:

Schedule:

Start Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Original Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Final Contract Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

Beneficial Occupancy Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Cost Original Project Cost:

Final Project Cost:

Cost Difference

*Original Subcontractor Cost:

*Final Subcontractor Cost:

*Cost Difference

Cost and Time Growth Discussion: Reason(s) for differences between original and final schedule and/or costs. This section can be excluded if not applicable to the project. Response should contain more detail than “Owner requested/initiated changes”. Provide examples to support growth.

*Only to be completed if the experience was performed as a subcontractor on the submitted project.

OFFERORS MAY INCREASE SPACING IN FORM AS NECESSARY

PHASE I - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS

DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE

OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.