B.08.03 _Amendment 01 - W912DR22R0019 - Bldg 59 6.8.2022.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

Project Title: National Defense University, Building 59 Renovations, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1.Provide answ ers to the questions received during the Request for Information (RFI) period.

2.Provide the Site Visit sign in sheet.

3.Update section 00 20 00 of the solicitation.

4.Provide updated attachment “Experience in Relevant Projects”.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jun-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 W912DR22R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-May-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

08-Jun-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:

W912DR22R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

OVERVIEW

NOTES TO OFFERORS

1. PROPOSAL CONDITIONS

a. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, is using a Bifurcated Design-Bid-Build (DBB) solicitation process to award this firm fixed price construction contract. The Bifurcated Solicitation Process is a split/two part request for proposal (RFP) best value trade-off procurement process for requirements that are approximately 60%-90% designed, but waiting for 100% design will unreasonably delay the award.

b. At this time the 95% drawings are being issued. On or around 24 June 2022, an Amendment containing the final 100% design, final small business goals, and Small Business Participation Goals format will be issued via email ONLY to those Offerors who provided Volume I proposals in response to the solicitation.

c. Part I RFI’s due 1 June 2022.

Part I proposals due 21 June 2022.

Part II Amendment issued on or around 24 June 2022 Part II RFI’s due 01 July 2022 Part II proposals due 25 July 2022

d. All RFIs must be submitted via ProjNet (additional information below).

e. A site visit will be held on 26 May 2022 at 1000AM EST. The meeting location will be the National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.

f. QUESTION TO OFFERORS: PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE DURATION: Current Period of Performance has been established for 540 days after receiving Notice to Proceed (NTP). If an Offeror determines that duration is inaccurate then an inquiry should be submitted during the Request for Information period. See Section 4 below for instructions on how to submit an inquiry.

2. COMPETITION: Full and Open Competition.

3. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

a. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Block 13 of Page 1 of this Solicitation document. Proposals or modifications to proposals that are received by facsimile will not be considered.

b. Hand Carried and Mailed Proposal: Hand carried and mailed proposals are not required. See Solicitation Proposal section for directions on how to submit proposals electronically.

c. SF 1442 BACK (Page 2 of the Solicitation): Offerors are required to acknowledge the receipt of all amendments to the Solicitation on the Standard Form 1442 in Block 19. Offerors shall fully complete all the required areas located under the section designated as “OFFER” (refer to Items 14 through 20C).

d. BID GUARANTEE: The offerors are required to submit a Bid Guarantee for this procurement along with their price submission. Any offeror failing to submit an authentic Bid Guarantee will be considered non-responsive to the Solicitation and ineligible for award. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the amount of 20% of the bidder’s price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less.

e. BONDS AND INSURANCE: The Contractor will be required to furnish proof of insurance, including copies of the required endorsements, and performance and payment bonds within ten (10) calendar days following the Contractor’s receipt of the contract award.

4. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) No Later Than (NLT) 10:00 AM (EST), 1 June 2022. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below 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.

The Bidder Inquiry Key is 22D6WT-ZXC56C

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

*** NOTE: QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PROJNET ARE NOT OFFICIAL. OFFICIAL ANSWERS WILL

BE ISSUED VIA AN AMENDMENT. ***

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

This request for proposal (RFP) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for the HVAC and renovation services for Eisenhower Hall (Building 59), which is located on the Fort McNair Military Base in Washington, D.C.

Each volume shall be submitted electronically to the Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) site. You are able to drop-off (upload) one or more files (total size cannot exceed 8GB).

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email the Contract Specialist, Qiana Bowman, qiana.l.bowman@usace.army.mil, no later than five (5) business days prior to the proposed due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for a request code five (5) business days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive the request code in time to upload their submission.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

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

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

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for the recipient. For this solicitation, the recipient is the Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Qiana Bowman, qiana.l.bowman@usace.army.mil. The e-mail address of the Government Employee who initiation the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the E-mail address for the

Contract Specialist after entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipient List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipient you added.

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

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

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

Any portion of the proposal that is changed (because of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title, 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, and page numbers (e.g., page 1 of 23).

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

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

a. All proposals shall be submitted no later than the time and date specified on the SF 1442, block 13. Offeror’s proposal received after the required time and date deadline will not be evaluated. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposals after submitting it in response to the original Solicitation, and so any submissions should be submitted on the best terms possible and free of errors.

b. Each volume’s contents must be separate by tabs/pages as discussed below.

Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 11-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Past Performance 1 20

I Schedule & Management Approach 1 20

II* Small Business Participation 1 25

II* Cost/Price 1 No page limit

III(a) Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents. Note – all amendments must be acknowledged in block 19** (Administrative Documents)

1 No page limit

III(b) Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, Certificate of Corporate Principal Authority, and Certifications / Representations. Note – all amendments must be acknowledged in block 19** (Administrative Documents)

1 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

Cover sheet, table of contents, tabs and summary section does not count towards the page count.

*Volume II should be submitted in two (2) separate PDF files.

Volume II – Small Business Participation Volume II – Cost/Price

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled.

Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Exception is for the Gantt chart, in which 11” x 17” format may be used, and each page shall be counted as one page provided the only information presented is the Gantt chart. The Gantt chart must be in color and must be legible.

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. If you have a large number of files, it is recommended that you combined or compress (zipped) using WinZip version 6.2 or later before uploading to the SAFE site. Files shall be legible and searchable Adobe PDF format. Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to the recipient you choose to have access your file(s). Note: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description).

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable**

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Each offeror is required to submit a proposal consisting of the following volumes in separate electronic files. CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE SUBMISSION DATE:

Part I

Volume I – Technical Proposal (Factor 1 Past Performance and Factor 2 Schedule & Management), (electronic copy)

Volume III (a) Administrative Documents, (electronic copy)

Part II

Volume II – (Factor 3 Small Business Participation Plan and Factor 4 Price), (electronic copy)

Volume III (b) – Administrative Documents, (electronic copy)

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

This request for proposal (RFP) seeks proposals from Offerors interested in being selected for HVAC and renovation construction services for Eisenhower Hall (Building 59), which is located on the Fort McNair Military Base in Washington, D.C. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in Section 00 21 16.

This is a request for Part I - Volume I proposals.

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. The best value determination will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgement.

For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Best Value Trade- Off Process. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

This is a request for Part 1 - Volume I proposals. The Government will request proposals for Volumes II and III via Amendment to the Solicitation containing the 100% design. The Amendment containing the 100% design shall ONLY be issued directly to those Offerors who provided the Government a Volume I proposal.

This is a Full and Open (Unrestricted) competitive RFP.

PART I:

Volume I: Technical Proposal (Factors 1 & 2) – will be submitted in respond to this RFP.

Volume II: Price & Small Business Participation Plan (Factors 3 & 4) – will be requested via Amendment with 100% design documents.

Volume III(a): Administrative Documents to be submitted with Volume I.

Volume III(b): Administrative Documents to be submitted with Volume II.

Past Performance (Factor 1), Schedule and Management Approach (Factor 2), and SBPP (Factor 3) will be adjectivally rated.

Past Performance (Factor 1) is more important than Schedule and Management Approach (Factor 2). Schedule and Management Approach (Factor 2) is more important than Small Business Participation Plan (Factor 3). When combined, non-price factors are approximately equal to cost or price (Factor 4).

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.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Past Performance, Schedule and Management evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

PART 1 - RFP Volume I:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Schedule and Management Approach

PART 2 - RFP Volume II:

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan Factor 4: Price

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 (FAR) subpart 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as 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 provide a teaming agreement or commitment (in the case of any affiliates) signed by all parties. The teaming agreement/commitment shall:

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

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

c. The estimated percentage of work to be completed by each member submitted for the solicitation. This can be a rough order of magnitude for Phase I; however, this agreement/letter must be resubmitted with Phase II to include the actual proposed percentages.

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

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

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

In the cast of mentor/protégé relationship, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. Once the relationship has been approved, the “Prime Offeror” experience can come from any of the entities involved in the relationship.

The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming arrangement.

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

In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience must only be submitted by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to 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. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé is a Small and a Large business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

Factor 1: PAST PERFORMANCE: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical capability.

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

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

All teaming agreements/commitments shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1 and will not be included in the overall page count.

a. EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS: Each offeror will be evaluated on relevancy and

The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) but no more than five

(5) design-bid-build (DBB) and/or design-build (DB) completed projects. At least one (1) must be a design-bid-build project. Of the three (3) projects submitted at least two (2) must be a renovation. If the Offeror’s submission exceeds the maximum project limitation of five (5) completed projects, the first five (5) projects submitted will be evaluated only, while the remaining additional project(s) will not be evaluated. These projects must be of relevant scope and complexity and have either a minimum project size of 75,000 Building Gross Square Foot (BGSF) or demonstrate a minimum completion value of $30,000,000 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.) and address the discussions requested on Attachment A while meeting the teaming agreement requirements above. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than six (6) years preceding the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects that have a Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) within the same date range will also be considered.

*Note: In reference to Task Order Construction Contracts (TOCCs)/Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: Contracts will not be accepted as a project submission; however, individual task orders/delivery orders on TOCCs and/or ID/IQ contracts can be submitted under Factor 1. Each task/delivery order submitted must individually meet the requirements of the factor. Submissions of multiple task/delivery orders as a project will not be accepted or evaluated.

At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall include a detailed discussion of experience as the PRIME CONTRACTOR with upgrading HVAC repair of a multi-story commercial building facility.

All submitted projects shall include a detailed discussion of at least four (4) or more of the following elements:

• Experience working on military installations with badging requirements

• Experience constructing or renovating a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) space.

• Experience with interior and exterior renovation/build-out of multi-story commercial building (i.e., including water proofing, ceilings, floor coverings, interior partitions, loading dock, interior and exterior finishes.

• Experience repairing building masonry shell, roofs, and windows to preserve historic masonry façade.

• Experience replacing, balancing, and commissioning an upgraded HVAC system for a multi-level structure greater than 75,000 square feet.

• Experience with abatement/remediation of potentially hazardous building materials including mold and asbestos containing materials (ACM).

• Experience working with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO).

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

Each element must have a description of how the project meets the element (e.g.

concrete paving – For this project, 500 LF of concrete sidewalks were installed, 300 LF of curbs were removed and re-installed, etc.).

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

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

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

b. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT

PROJECTS:

For each of the projects submitted, provide a copy of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report, or USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment B) from a representative of the owner. The Offeror must request that their client complete the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for Relevant Experience (Form PPQ-0) 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.

Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for the project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment B) for projects submitted under the tab for EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact.

Previously completed PPQs may be submitted provided that the documents do not reference any other solicitations. Submitted PPQs must only reference this solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings will take precedence over PPQs.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The information obtained from these sources will be evaluated supplementary to the past performance questionnaires.

In reference to the contracts pulled from these sources, the relevancy of the projects, completion dates, ratings and comments in the individual categories and overall ratings will be considered in making the overall confidence assessment.

The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror (copies of awards must be included under this factor for validation). Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

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.

Factor 2: SCHEDULE & MANAGEMENT APPROACH: During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each schedule and management factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

The submitted material MUST be organized sequentially under tabs/pages for each numbered section to facilitate evaluation. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate technical and management capability.

a. Project Team Management Staffing: The Offeror shall provide a narrative that states its proposed approach to adequately staffing and coordinating the project team. This narrative should identify key project personnel and how the personnel meet the qualifications as noted in the specifications for their specialty. Key Personnel include, but not limited to Project Manager, on-site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Site Safety Manager, and CxC (Commissioning Construction Lead).” Resumes are not required.

b. Management Structure: Describe the proposed management structure for the team to include the construction firms, their roles and responsibilities, and the subcontracting firms the Offeror is considering utilizing. The narrative should provide a clear depiction of the project team structure including authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Offerors are encouraged to describe prior experience working with their proposed subcontractors

Note: If the subcontract firms have not been selected at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror must identify the intended subcontract trades.

Describe how subcontractors are managed by the prime contractor. Discuss how subcontract relationships are structured to assure proper balance and flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities, and coordination. Discuss how non-performance by subcontractors is handled by the Prime contractor.

The Offerors must provide a statement that, in accordance with the specifications of the RFP, all individuals, including subcontractors, shall be U.S. Citizens or U.S. Persons.

c. Pre-Award Project Schedule: The Pre-Award Project Schedule consists of two parts, a schedule narrative and a Gantt chart schedule.

Narrative: The Offeror shall submit a detailed narrative which includes a chronological description of the critical tasks to complete the construction of this project. The narrative must present a reasonable approach to demonstrate understanding of the project requirements, sequence of construction, risks and challenges, as well as demonstrate a comprehensive plan to complete the project within the stated period of performance on the sequencing of the work.

The Offeror shall also include a risk management plan that identifies major risks to the proposed schedule sequence and proposed mitigations.

Gantt Chart Schedule: The Offeror shall use a Gantt Chart to graphically represent the schedule including key milestones with start and finish dates, critical tasks and shall reflect a reasonable sequence of construction. This Gantt chart schedule shall reflect elements discussed in the narrative and demonstrate that the project can be completed within the period of performance. The Critical Path and long lead items should be clearly identifiable. The schedule shall be in color and legible. The Gantt chart schedule shall demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the requirement completion date by showing all but not limited to the following mandatory critical tasks:

• Start-up Activities

• Phasing

• Critical Path

• Permitting/Agency Coordination

• Material procurement to include any long lead items

• Mobilization

• Site Preparation

• Hazardous Material Abatement/Remediation

• Submittal processing/review/approval activities

• Fabrication and delivery of materials

• Assembly/disassembly

• Installation

• Testing and Commissioning

• Demobilization and

• Closeout

The schedule shall demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the required completion date by showing the following:

• Critical Path

• Detail showing appropriate subtasks and number of days

• Logic and Sequences

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

PART 1 - Volume I

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Factor 1 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the RFP.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past six years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the

NAICS 236220.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past six (6) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. Past Performance evaluations will be rated in terms of performance confidence for the Government; that is, projects that are less relevant in terms of size, scope or complexity, dollar value, and/or demonstrating low past performance evaluation ratings will be interpreted as indicators of less 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.

Projects that include more than four elements may be considered more relevant and may be considered a stronger predictor of future success and increase the past performance confidence assessment.

Design-bid-build projects may be considered indicators of more confidence. Higher confidence assessments could be given to Offerors submitting two or more design-bid-build projects.

Including more than the one project demonstrating upgraded HVAC repair/renovation experience may also be considered an indicator of more confidence.

Additional consideration may be given to projects that include historical multi-story commercial building, particularly buildings older than 1970.

e. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 1) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 1 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

f. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence

Assessment (see Table 2 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition 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 record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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.

Factor 2 – Schedule & Management Approach: The Offeror’s narrative will meet the requirements of this RFP if the narrative is a specific discussion that addresses the elements identified in paragraphs C. Factor 2 – Schedule & Management Approach, in sufficient detail to demonstrate management capability. The narrative must clearly demonstrate a reasonable approach to the contract, an understanding of the requirements of this contract and a plan that has clearly applied the information provided in paragraphs C. Factor 2 – Schedule & Management Approach which will lead to successful completion of all work within the contract duration.

Additional consideration may be given to teams demonstrating the proposed project construction team has successfully worked together on two (2) or more past projects which may be considered a stronger predictor of future success and may increase the combined technical/risk rating.

The narrative, risk management plan, and Gantt chart must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the execution of the project. In the narrative, the offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the contract requirements by identifying the challenges and risks associated with the renovation of a 60-year-old building. In the risk management plan, the offeror must describe their technical approach to mitigating the risks and overcoming the challenges they have identified. The Gantt chart must demonstrate a practical approach to the sequencing of construction activities and durations to complete the project without effecting time or budget.

The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

PART 2:

Volume II:

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

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

Factor 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (SBPP) Proposal: 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, requirements and goals established herein.

Large business contractors may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses. Small business contractors may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses. A small business prime offerors’ own participation as a prime count towards the percentages set in this evaluation factor, and small businesses are not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation goals.

The offeror shall articulate within their SBPP how they intend to meet the small business objectives, requirements and participation goals. Nothing precludes an offeror from further demonstrating their extent of commitment to use small businesses beyond what has been required by the subject RFP. 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, successful Small Business Administration Surveillance Review findings, CPARS ratings that address small business utilization, Past Performance Questionnaires, testimonials regarding small business support/use, Summary Subcontracting Reports, etc. Discuss and submit proof of any specific outreach efforts performed in support of this requirement (e.g. holding internal or external meetings with potential small business subcontractors, ads, any conference attendance or host) that demonstrate the Offerors’ effort to identify small business subcontractors specifically in support of this requirement (e.g. roster, attendance sheet, etc.), submission of proof of other outreach efforts, and proof of any other pertinent information that demonstrates the Offerors’ current and/or past efforts to support and/or solicit small businesses. Please provide actual official documentation to support efforts described oppose to quotes or summaries.

Material submitted in support of the SBPP shall be organized sequentially under applicable tabs and all pages must be numbered to facilitate evaluation. The SBTEB will not look to obtain information in support of an offerors SBPP from other binders/binders or within the Subcontracting Plan (when applicable).

Do not submit a hybrid plan that includes a combination of elements from a SBPP (IAW DFARS PGI 215.304) and elements of a Subcontracting Plan (IAW FAR 52.219-9/AFARS Appendix DD) as the two are distinctly different. Doing so will result in a weakness.

Offerors submitting SBPPs for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of plans.

The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

The SBTEB will review the firms specifically identified by the Offeror using section (d) of the SBPP Proposal Format in Appendix C, Attachment C.

Note: Small business subcontractors identified…