W912DS-15-R-0012.pdf

W16ROE50993388

a. Project: Explosive Research Development Laboratory Facility (ERDLF), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ b.This is a Design-Bid--Build Low est Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement.

c.This Procurement is being solicited Unrestricted for Full and Open Competition w ith HUBZone preference.

d.The Estimated cost range f or this project is $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

NAICS Code: 236210; Size Standard: $36,500,000.00 Submit Proposals no later than the date and time stated in Block 13, or as amended, to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division, Room 1843, 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0090 Due to heightened security at U.S. Government installations, all Offerors are instructed to allow ample time to get through security check, inorder to have their Proposals delivered before 2:00 PM EST to the address above.

Funds are not presently available for this acquistion. No Contract aw ard w ill be made until appropriated funds are made available (may take up to 9 months after proposals are received).

MOHENDA R SURAGE 917-790-8088

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

04-Jan-2016

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______5 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________365 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________00 73 00

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________04 Feb 2016 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 1843

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

12:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

212 -264-3013FAX:TEL: (917)790-8173 TEL: FAX:

W912DS-15-R-0012 126

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912DS-15-R-0012

Section Supplies or Services and Price

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Completion of the Site Work

FFP

to include all utilities beyond the 5 foot line, clearing, grading and paving

FOB: Destination

MILSTRIP: W16ROE50993388

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: W16ROE50993388

NET AMT

Section 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

0002 1 Job Completion of the Processing Building

FFP

FOB: Destination

0003 1 Job Completion of the Magazine Building

0004 1 Job Completion of the Field Office Building

0005 1 Job Completion of the Enclosed Walkway

FFP

from the Processing Building to the Magazine Building

0006 1 Job Completion of the Enclosed Walkway

FFP

from the Magazine Building to the Field Office Building

0007 1 Job Completion of the Enclosed Walkway

FFP

from the Field Office Building to Building #221.

TOTAL

TOTAL (CLINS 0001 – 0007): $__________________________________

NOTES:

1. Price Evaluations will be based on the values of each CLIN: Base Items (sum of CLINS 0001 through 0007).

2. Offerors are reminded that they must propose on the plans and specification as amended. Any deviations, conditions, or attachments made by the offeror himself thereto may render the offer nonresponsive and may be cause for its rejection.

3. Offer Acceptance Period: Offers shall be valid for one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days for acceptance from the proposal due date.

4. Offerors are required to propose on the base line items or their proposal will be rejected.

It is anticipated that the project will be funded with FY16 MILCON Funds. A directive authorizing authority to advertise was issued on 8 Jul 15. Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds (which may take up to 9 months after proposals are received) from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer

CPARS

CPARS

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that Past Performance Information (PPI) be collected on DoD contracts. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a web-enabled application the supports the completion, distribution and retrieval of all contract performance evaluations. Contractor Representatives are responsible for reviewing and commenting on evaluations submitted on the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website at https://www.cpars.gov/index.htm.

Section 00 20 00 - BUILDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Electronic Submission: In addition to the hard copies required in block 13 of the Standard Form 1442, all offerors shall submit their proposals on a CD-ROM. Written portions of the bid shall be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The electronic version shall be either a single file tabbed in the same order as the hard copy or multiple files hyperlinked to a single table of contents. Any portion of the bid not available in electronic format, i.e.

cut sheets, if applicable, should be scanned in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, thus making it available electronically.

The CDROM must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, installation, and offeror’s name. The CD-ROM shall be marked with a label stating “Unclassified//Controlled Unclassified Info.” In the event of any conflict between the electronic submission and the hard copy submission, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government bases its evaluation and ultimately, its decision. Electronic media may be submitted in an un-editable format.

Section 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICE TO OFFEROR

SECTION 00 22 11

SECTION 00 22 11

NOTICE TO OFFERORS, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS,

EVALUATION PROCEDURES, BASIS OF AWARD, REVELANT PROJECT INFORMATION

SHEET & PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONARE (FROM THE 00 22 11 SECTION) - BEST

VALUE LPTA

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.1 Acquisition

1.1. This is a full design “Best Value - Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” solicitation, in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, for the ERDLF at Picatinny, NJ (USMA-WP) . The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value, lowest price technically acceptable, to the Government. As this is a competitive negotiation acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until all awards are made.

1.2 Target

NOT USED

1.3 Who May Submit - Any Small Business or Large Business

1.4 Professional Registration - Not Used.

1.5 Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. The written portion of the proposal (Volume I - Technical Proposal), however, shall not exceed 50 pages. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. Pages containing text shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper. Use of ‘TAB’ pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal’s total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch margins all around.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Proposal Requirements and Submission

Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Two (2) separate volumes shall be submitted as Volume I - Technical Proposal and

Volume II - Price Proposal. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures).

2.2 Where to Submit

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages to the Corps of Engineers (USACE) at the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.3 Submission Deadline

The USACE must receive proposals not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 Incurring Costs

The Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the Offerors submitting an offer in response to this solicitation.

2.5 Format Requirements

Submit one (1) original plus six (6) copies. All proposals shall contain the volume number and the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. The original proposal must be clearly marked as “ORIGINAL” and the original signatures must be in blue ink. Copies of the proposals must also be clearly marked as “COPY x of y (i.e. COPY 1 of 6)”. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed below.

The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below, may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "unacceptable" and thus ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3.1.1. FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE –

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

To demonstrate recent, relevant experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms – (Attachment 2 for construction experience). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Limited Liability Corporation, or members of a Teaming Agreement, demonstrate the experience of each construction entity as is relevant to their proposed role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than seven (7) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) projects, one of which must have been performed by the Prime Contractor, but no more than seven (7) projects for Factor 1. At least one (1) project must demonstrate experience completing a partially complete construction project initiated by another firm. The example showing experience on a partially completed construction project must have been done by the prime contractor submitted the proposal for this RFP.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience demonstrated in the submitted EXPERIENCE INFORMATION FACT SHEET, Form A2. Factor 1 shall be rated in accordance with information provided below. The projects submitted should include the following criteria.

Projects must be similar in scope, complexity and magnitude in order to be considered relevant.

The Offeror must submit a minimum of 2 relevant projects, one of which must demonstrate experience completing a partially complete construction project initiated by another firm.

o Scope is defined as the construction of a facility or complex of at least 8,000 square feet, planned and engineered for commercial (nonresidential) or industrial use.

o Complexity is defined as the management and coordination of multi-disciplined construction teams to complete projects that include the majority of the following types of work: reinforced concrete; structural steel, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and site work/paving.

o Magnitude is defined as the construction of a facility or a complex with a contract value of at least $5M.

Where this combination of experience includes the following, the proposal may be rated as deficient (the following list does not encompass all possible deficiencies):

- Experience examples are not verifiable.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 1:

The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating for this factor.

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2. FACTOR 2 - CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will provide past performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, 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 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) or other personnel with knowledge of performance, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources.

The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below.

Negative performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of negative performance, if significant enough, may lead to a negative rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant negative performance may lead to a negative rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current solicitation, although the past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the criteria for Factor 1, Past Experience.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s record of past performance information in accordance with the table shown below.

Based on the Offeror’s recent relevant performance record, the Government will make a determination as to the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned in accordance with the table shown below.

Where 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 will receive an Unknown Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 2

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

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

Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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 government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unsatisfactory Rating for this factor.

The Government will review the relative risk of the contractors’ ratings but normally not award to an Offeror that receives unacceptable rating in this factor:

3.1.3 FACTOR 3 - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR’S TEAM

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR’S TEAM

a. Submission Requirements

i. Offerors must submit resumes for the following Key Personnel:

1. Overall Project Manager

2. Construction Quality Control Manager

3. Site Superintendent (Overall Field Manager responsible for Construction).

ii. All resumes must include the following information and may NOT exceed three (3) pages per Resume:

Name and title Assignment on this project Name of firm with which associated Years experience with the firm (in the employee’s field of expertise/discipline) and years of experience with other firms (in the field of expertise/ discipline) Educational degree(s), year of degree, and institution Active professional registration and year first registered, if applicable Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract List of projects in which the individual has worked to include Name of project(s), project location(s) and the role or position filled by the individual.

iii. The resumes of the key personnel listed above must indicate that they have the experience and degrees as prescribed in the table below.

iv. Degrees listed in resumes must be from institutions of higher education, such as United States universities or colleges.

v. Resumes of key personnel must demonstrate that key personnel candidates have the minimum of number of years of relevant professional experience (see Table 1, below, for minimum qualifications). For example, the Project Manager must have a minimum of five (5) years experience managing similar projects (for example, from July 2010 to Present).

vi. The Offeror must document whether personnel proposed for work under the project are currently employed by the Offeror. When the Offeror is a joint venture, key personnel who are employees of any of the joint venture partners meet this requirement. When resumes indicate that key personnel candidates are not currently employed by the Offeror (this includes key personnel candidates currently employed by subcontractors), the Offeror must provide a signed letter of commitment, dated within one month before the date the Offeror submitted its proposal under the Solicitation, signed by both the key personnel candidate and the Offeror, and specifically referencing the Solicitation number and title. The signed letters of commitment will not count towards the page limitation of either the resumes or the overall page limitation of this Section.

b. Evaluation Criteria

i. The Offeror’s proposed key personnel will be evaluated against the minimum qualifications stated below:

Table 1 Position Experience and Education Requirements

Overall Project Manager

Architecture or Engineering Degree (civil, electrical, mechanical or structural; see paragraph a. iv., above) with a minimum of 5 years professional experience as a Project Manager. Resume must identify at least 2 examples of previous construction projects on which he or she was the Project Manager.

2 Construction Quality Control Manager

a) Have a Bachelors of Science from an accredited engineering, architecture, or a construction management college and a minimum of two years experience in construction.

OR

b) Shall have a minimum of four years of construction experience at a minimum level of a project superintendent and/or CQC Manager.

3 Site Superintendent Site Superintendent with a minimum of 5 years of construction experience. Resume must identify at least 2 examples of construction projects in which he or she performed the duties of a Site Superintendent.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 3

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating in this factor.

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.3. VOLUME 2 - PRICE PROPOSAL AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION*

Factor/Sub Factor

Location Description

N/A Vol. 2 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Bid Schedules)

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Bid Bond N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information N/A Vol. 2 TAB D Price Breakdown Sheet N/A Vol. 2 TAB E Representations and Certifications

*NOTE - The Government will evaluate price independently from the technical evaluation. Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. T 3.3.1

GENERAL

The price proposal shall be submitted in a separate binder labeled "Volume II – Price Proposal". The sections shall parallel the submission requirements identified in the bid schedule. Provide six copies of bound written material (folded and bound in Volume II).

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate envelope labeled: “Volume II - Pro Forma Requirements.”

3.3.2 TAB A - PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT

LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

3.3.2.1. Submission Requirements:

3.3.2.2. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. Submit Attachment 1 Proposal Data Sheet.

3.3.2.3. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a cost breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Cost Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

3.3.2.4. Evaluation Criteria:

3.3.2.5. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

3.3.2.6. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

3.3.3 TAB B - BID BOND

3.3.3.1. Submission Requirements:

3.3.3.2. Submit the Bid Bond in accordance with the Request for Proposal.

3.3.3.3. Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency.

3.3.4 TAB C - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

3.3.4.1 Submission Requirements:

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer/PCO’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(2) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

(4) 8(a) Joint Venture Offeror or Offeror submitting Proposal as HubZone Joint Venture shall submit evidence from Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist

(5) If the offeror is a joint venture, submit a signed/executed joint venture agreement.

3.3.4.2 One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(1) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(2) Number of years the firm has been in business

(3) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(4) Information showing Offeror’s bondability for this project. Include the bond rate.

(5) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

3.3.4.3 Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer/PCO shall use this information in making a responsible determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

3.3.5 TAB D – PRICE BREAKDOWN SHEET

3.3.5.1. Submission Requirements:

3.3.5.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

3.3.5.3. Evaluation Criteria:

3.3.5.4. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

3.3.5.5 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

3.3.6 TAB E - REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

3.3.6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Confirm that the Offeror’s representations and certifications have been completed and also include hard copies under this Tab or proof that the offeror is registered in the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA).

3.3.6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA: The representations and certifications submitted under this tab and online will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror’s representations are consistent, accurate, and in accordance with regulation. It will not be rated.

4.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

4.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

4.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference.

4.2. EVALUATION

4.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating of either acceptable or unacceptable for factor 1 and 3. The SSEB will assign a consensus performance risk rating for Factor 2.

Upon conclusion, the SSEB will assign an overall rating for the proposal of either acceptable or unacceptable. A proposal will be deemed acceptable if it receives an acceptable rating for Factors 1 and 3 and as a minimum a Satisfactory Confidence rating for Factor 2.

4.2.3. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in meaningful discussions with each technically acceptable offeror in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Contracting Officer/PCO will tailor the discussions to each offeror’s proposal relative to the solicitation requirements and evaluation factors. To be meaningful, at a minimum, discussions must include identification of all evaluated deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The Contracting Officer/PCO also is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer/PCO, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the Contracting Officer/PCO will not discuss with individual offerors how their proposal compares to other offerors proposals (technical leveling and/or technical transfusion is not allowed). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

4.2.4. Upon conclusion of discussions Offerors will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

4.3. DEFINITIONS

4.3.1. Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, where correction of this error is not possible without major revisions to the proposal, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level or when a failure to meet the RFP requirements is a life/safety issue.

4.3.2 Uncertainty

Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

4.3.3. Deviation

Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

4.4. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM -

4.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor.

The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

They will not compare proposals.

4.4.2. Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative explaining how the proposal met the evaluation criteria and/or describing any deficiencies, and/or required clarifications.

5.0 BASIS OF AWARD

5.1. The Government will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose technically acceptable proposal represents the lowest price.

5.2. The basis of award will be the Government’s assessment as to which proposal is determined to be technically acceptable and is the lowest price determined fair and reasonable through the use price analysis. Offerors that do not receive an acceptable rating (technically acceptable), will not be selected, regardless of their price (lowest Offeror may not be selected).

5.3. Offerors have been reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of an acceptable proposal without discussions, if deemed to be in the best interests of the Government.

5.4. A successful large business offeror will be required to submit and negotiate a Small Business Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer/PCO. The dollar threshold for subcontractor plan will be $ 36,500,000 for NAICS code 236210.

6.0 REVELANT PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET

W912DS-15-R-0012,

ERDLF, PICATINNY, NJ

REVELANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE FORM

Offeror’s Name: _______________________________________________________________________

Project Name: ________________________________________________________________________

Project Location: ______________________________________________________________________

Project Size (i.e.; square foot area): ________________________________________________________

Project Description (scope and complexity): _________________________________________________

Facility Type (i.e.; Explosive Research Development & Loading Facility, etc.):

Role (i.e. prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work Company/Firm self-performed on this project:

Project Award Amount: _________________ Project Completion Amount: ______________________

Project Original Contract Duration and Completion Date: ______________________________________

Project Final Contract Duration and Completion Date: _________________________________________

Client/Agency (if Government, give contract number and name of Contracting Officer):

Client/Agency Point of Contact, Phone Number and Address (if Government, give contract number and name of Contracting Officer):

List Project Prime Construction Contractor and Subcontractor(s):________________________________

7.0 PAST PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER QUESTIONNAIRE

The Offeror/Contractor listed is being considered in a Source Selection by the US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. This is a request for past performance information on a project the Offeror has identified as being relevant to this solicitation. This information will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror's performance of that project. The following information, once submitted, will be treated as confidential and will not be released. This information will only be used to evaluate this Offeror for this solicitation. Please complete and return the forms to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District at the following mailing address or via fax to

US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Attn: Contracting Division, Room 1843 (Rippert Roberts) Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0090 Mohenda.R.Surage@usace.army.mil

Phone: 917-790-8088

NAVFAC/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: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO TO USACE AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE

SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS MUST 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 EVALUATION FACTORS

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. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, E VG S M U N manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer/PCO in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

7.5 PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM)

7.5.1 Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

(a) Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance…