Request_for_Prqualification_Information_-_Bridge_Work-W912DS18R0001.pdf

Request for Prequalification Information

Bridge Work, Physical Security/Safety Improvements

(FedBizOpps Notice W912DS18R0001)

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

PREQUALIFICATION INSTRUCTIONS:

• Responses to this Request for Prequalification Information must be prepared in accordance with Section 00 22 11 of this document. Although this document contains both the Prequalification factors and the Source Selection factors, Offerors are to respond only to the Prequalification factors at this time. Offerors have been presented with the Source Selection phase factors for information only. The plans and specifications, and the price proposal schedule will be issued during the source selection phase. Only prequalified offerors will receive the solicitation, plans, and specifications.

• Offerors are to note that where marked with an asterisk (*) specific information has been omitted from this prequalification announcement, and these sections will be updated accordingly as part of the solicitation during the source selection phase.

• The complete SF1442 Request for Proposal document will be issued later to those offerors that become successfully prequalified. The following sections are provided at this time in the prequalification phase for informational purposes. Information in these sections may be revised in the final Request for Proposals to be issued during the Source Selection phase:

o Source Selection Factors 6, 7, and 8.

o Section 00 73 01 – Contract General Provisions.

o Section 00 73 02 – Contract Special Provisions.

o Security Requirements.

• Offerors shall not conduct any advance coordination with any external agencies or parties specifically identified in this document without permission being granted by the Contracting Officer. The government intends to issue a letter to the successful offeror at the time of award that they are not to conduct any coordination with any external parties or agencies identified in the solicitation or contract documents without receiving permission to do so from USACE and NYCDOT.

• The government does not intend to hold a site visit for offerors for this solicitation.

• Submit any questions concerning this prequalification request in writing to the

Contract Specialist, Matthew Lubiak at: matthew.lubiak@usace.army.mil mailto:matthew.lubiak@usace.army.mil

• Sealed submittals in original and 6 copies are due by 2:00PM local time 08 June 2018 to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contracting Division, Room 1843 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10278-0090 U.S.A.

• Submittals shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the FBO notice number, and the date and time submittals are due.

FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD, EVALUATION CRITERIA, RATING SYSTEM

AND DEFINITIONS (SECTION 00 22 11)

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is a “Prequalification of Sources” Request for Information (RFI), in accordance with the procedures authorized by DFARS 236.272, for the construction of physical security measures/safety improvements in the New York City area (Manhattan and Brooklyn Boroughs), on and around long-span bridges. Per these procedures, Offerors are required to submit a response to the Government’s Prequalification RFI, which will consist of information addressing capabilities and other factors identified in the prequalification criteria. The Government will evaluate the prequalification information for acceptability (all prequalification factors will be evaluated as “Go/No Go” factors), in order to determine a short-list of Offerors to which the Source Selection Request for Proposal (RFP)/solicitation document, including plans and specifications, will be sent.

Only short-listed Offerors that meet the prequalification criteria will be considered for the subsequent Source Selection phase.

The Government intends to use a “Best Value Trade-Off” solicitation, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, for the Source Selection Phase. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a single 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 to the Government. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in paragraph 5.3 per FAR 15.001.

The Prequalification phase of the procurement will be open to all interested Offerors, and will consist of a RFI posted on Fed Biz Opps. The Source Selection phase that follows the Prequalification, will consist of a RFP, and will only involve the short-listed Offerors from the Prequalification phase. The RFP, including plans, specifications, and any other documents that make up the solicitation package, will be sent directly to the short-listed Offerors selected from the Prequalification phase for download from the Government’s AMRDEC SAFE site (this information will NOT be posted on Fed Biz Opps).

Offerors are notified that price will be evaluated in the Source Selection phase and it is considered approximately equal to all other source selection evaluation factors, when combined.

The Prequalification and Source Selection Phases will be conducted as follows:

Prequalification Phase: Factors 1-5 will be considered “Go/No Go” factors during this phase; thus while these factors are required to be satisfied to move on to the Source Selection Phase, the Government will not carry over evaluations from the Prequalification phase for consideration in the Source Selection Phase.

Source Selection Phase: Short-listed Offerors that have submitted an acceptable response in the Prequalification phase will be required to RESUBMIT Factors 1-3 in their proposal as part of this phase, which will be evaluated in the Government’s tradeoff analysis. The Offeror shall identify any items for Factors 1-3 in their Source Selection phase proposal that may have changed since their Prequalification response. Factors 6-8 and any of the supplementary volumes identified later in this document will make up the remainder of the Offeror’s Source Selection proposal submission

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the Source Selection proposals. Price will be evaluated on fairness, reasonableness, and affordability, but will not be scored.

NOTE: The Government’s evaluation does not relieve the awarded contractor from compliance with any and all criteria of the solicitation regardless of the ratings assigned for any Factor. The intent during the proposal submission and review process is not to require a detailed description of means and methods, nor to perform a detailed review of post-award submittals. If the Government evaluators have actual knowledge or strong suspicion that a proposed approach or solution is inappropriate, being used in the wrong application or otherwise does not meet the contract requirements, the Government will inform the Offeror in the event that discussions need to be conducted with the firm. The Government is not asking for alternate designs in the proposal and is not obligated to perform an engineering design or constructability review. Contractors should not anticipate that any alternate designs will be considered by the Government.

Acceptance of a proposal by the Government does not constitute acceptance of any variations or deviations from the requirements of the final RFP, whether or not they are identified before contract award. After award, in the event of conflict between the contractor’s accepted proposal and the requirements in the final, amended RFP, the order of precedence will be indicated by FAR

52.215-8, ORDER OF PRECEDENCE – UNIFORM CONTRACT FORMAT.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Submit a response to the Prequalification RFI, and if short-listed for the Source Selection Phase, a proposal in response to the RFP, on the most favorable terms from a price, small business participation and technical standpoint. Four (4) separate volumes shall be submitted under the Prequalification phase, and six (6) separate volumes shall be submitted under the Source Selection phase as indicated below (includes the two (2) volumes, consisting of Factors 1-3, that are being resubmitted from the Prequalification phase). If requested by the Contracting Officer, the Subcontracting Plan for large businesses may represent an additional volume under the Source Selection phase as indicated below.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be no more than fifty (50) pages for the Prequalification submission, and no more than one hundred and fifteen (115) pages for the Source Selection submission (includes the pages being resubmitted for Factors 1-3 from the Prequalification phase). Please note that Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ’s) are exempt from the overall page limitations for each submission. The purpose and contents of each volume are provided in the following tables:

Prequalification Factors (Short-Listed Firms must resubmit Factors 1-3 in their Source Selection proposal)

Factor Location Description Summary

Factor 1 Vol.

Tab A

Specialized Experience of Offeror’s Team

Examples of Previous Projects Completed by the Offeror. See ¶3.1.1

Factor 2 Tab B

Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team

Resumes for Project Superintendent, Project Manager, CQC Systems Manager, and SSHO. See ¶3.1.2

Factor 3 Vol. 2 Past Performance of Offeror’s Team

Questionnaires from Previous Clients. See ¶3.1.3

Factor 4 Vol. 3 Security Assurance Plan

Non-site-specific, administrative plan covering Personnel Security (Employee Assurance), OPSEC, AIS, Telecommunications, and Document Control. See ¶3.1.4

Factor 5 Vol. 4 Bonding Capability Demonstrated Bonding Capability. See ¶3.1.5

Source Selection Evaluation Factors

Factor Location Description Summary

Factor 1 Vol.

Tab A

Specialized Experience of Offeror’s Team

Examples of Previous Projects Completed by the Offeror. See ¶3.1.1

Factor 2 Tab B

Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team

Resumes for Project Superintendent, Project Manager, CQC Systems Manager, and SSHO. See ¶3.1.2

Factor 3 Vol. 2 Past Performance of Offeror’s Team

Questionnaires from Previous Clients. See ¶3.1.3

Factor 6 Vol. 5 Organizational/ Technical Approach & Schedule

Organizational Structure (personnel and prime/sub roles and responsibilities);

Technical Approach for Construction; and Schedule. See ¶4.1

Factor 7 Vol. 6 Personnel/Physical Security Assurance Site-specific Security Plan. See ¶4.2

Factor 8 Vol.

Tab A

Small Business Participation Plan

Submit information on planned SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, and WOSB who would participate, including type of service and dollar amount. See ¶4.3

Tab B

Past Utilization of Small Business

Past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Note: this is different than the Subcontracting Plan which is a pre-award requirement to be submitted upon request) . See ¶4.4

PRICE

Vol.

Tab A Price

Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet, Contract Line Item Schedule, and Supplemental Pricing Information. See ¶4.5.2

N/A Tab B Bid Guarantee Required per FAR Clause 52.228-1. See

¶4.5.3

N/A Tab C

Required Pre-Award Information

Information to support Responsibility Determination. See ¶4.5.4

N/A Vol. 9 Subcontracting Plan

(only for Large Businesses, only submitted upon request by the Contracting Officer) The otherwise successful Offeror, if a Large Business, will be required to submit a plan per FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL

BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN,

prior to award. See ¶4.6

Note: For consistency purposes, please be sure to adhere to the numbering of the Factors and Volumes identified in the tables herein and do not make any changes.

Relative Importance of Factors for Overall Tradeoff Notes:

1. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price.

2. Factors 1-5 are considered GO/NO-GO Factors, ONLY during the Prequalification phase. A rating of “GO” is required in all of these factors for an Offeror to advance to the Source Selection phase for consideration.

3. Factors 1-3 will be resubmitted by Short-Listed Offerors for the Source Selection phase, where they will be evaluated in full as part of the Government’s best value trade-off analysis as follows.

Relative Importance Factor

Most Important

Factor 1 Specialized Experience of

Offeror’s Team

Factor 6 Organizational/Technical Approach &

Schedule

Note: Factors 1 and 6 are equal in importance

2nd Most Important

Factor 2 Qualifications of the Offeror’s

Team

Factor 3 Past Performance of Offeror’s

Team

Note: Factors 2 and 3 are equal in importance

3rd Most Important Factor 7 Personnel/Physical Security Assurance

4th Most Important Factor 8 Small Business Participation Plan/ Past Utilization of Small Business

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR PREQUALIFICATION

3.1 PREQUALIFICATION, VOLUMES 1, 2, 3, AND 4: CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES

(FACTORS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5)

Prequalification Factors (Short-Listed Firms must resubmit these Factors 1-3 in their Source Selection proposal)

Factor Location Description Summary

Factor 1 Vol.

Tab A

Specialized Experience of Offeror’s Team

Examples of Previous Projects Completed by the Offeror. See ¶3.1.1

Factor 2 Tab B

Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team

Resumes for Project Superintendent, Project Manager, CQC Systems Manager, and SSHO. See ¶3.1.2

Factor 3 Vol. 2 Past Performance of Offeror’s Team

Questionnaires from Previous Clients. See ¶3.1.3

Factor 4 Vol. 3 Security Assurance Plan

Non-site-specific, administrative plan covering Personnel Security (Employee Assurance), OPSEC, AIS, Telecommunications, and Document Control. See ¶3.1.4

Factor 5 Vol. 4 Bonding Capability Demonstrated Bonding Capability. See ¶3.1.5

Note: For the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s response to the Prequalification RFI, the evaluation will consist of a determination of whether or not the Offeror’s response meets the minimum acceptable requirements as stated in each factor, in order to determine whether a “Go” rating is warranted. This is to apply to Factors 1-5. The Government will not evaluate the Prequalification responses to determine strengths during the Prequalification phase (This will only take place during the Source Selection phase, for Factors 1-3, if an Offeror has been short-listed to move on to that phase). During the Prequalification phase, the Government will evaluate each response to determine if any significant weaknesses result in a response being considered deficient, which would result in a “No Go” rating, and remove an Offeror from further consideration for the Source Selection phase. Offeror’s responses must be rated “Go” in all five (5) Prequalification factors in order to be short-listed and to move on to consideration for the Source Selection phase. A rating of “No Go” in any one of the five (5) Prequalification factors will result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for the Source Selection phase. Factors 4-5 are only being evaluated during the Prequalification phase and will not be evaluated in the Source Selection phase.

For the Government’s evaluation of a short-listed Offeror’s proposal response to the Source Selection RFP, the evaluation will be more in-depth and will focus on determining strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and the Government’s level of confidence in the ability of each Offeror’s proposal to meet the minimum requirements stated in each Source Selection factor. This is to apply to all factors (including Factors 1-3, which short-listed Offerors will have to resubmit in their Source Selection RFP proposal response for the Government to be able to perform a full evaluation of each factor).

Paragraphs 5.0 and 6.0 describe the Government’s rating systems for Prequalification, Source Selection, and basis of award in more depth.

3.1.1 FACTOR 1 (VOLUME 1, TAB A) - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE OF OFFEROR’S TEAM

3.1.1.1 The Offeror shall present examples of previous projects demonstrating experience relevant to this project, using the format provided in Attachment 1 (Relevant Project Information Sheets). As noted in Attachment 1, Offerors may use continuation sheets to provide information to the level of detail required to answer the RFI/RFP, as necessary.

Relevant experience is obtained by performing projects similar in scope, complexity and magnitude to this project. In order to be relevant, the experience must also be recent.

However this does not prevent the Government from considering projects completed more than seven (7) years ago; with less recent projects being considered less relevant.

Submit specialized experience information for the following elements/types of work:

a. Long Span Bridge Work: The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last twenty (20) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work. Long span bridge is defined herein as a bridge having a clear span of 1000 feet or greater. Scope is defined as work (construction or maintenance) on long span bridges (suspension, cable stay and cantilevered truss bridges) that involves work zone traffic control (WZTC) and which contains the following elements:

new bridge construction; or addition, replacement, repair, alteration or reinforcement of bridge structural members or components. Magnitude is defined as a total cost of over $100M in a single project/contract. Complexity is defined as bridge work involving the management and coordination of multiple trades and subcontractors in a major metropolitan area and including lifting of equipment or components of ten

(10) tons or greater in weight. Submit at least two (2) relevant projects. Additional consideration will be given to submissions of more than two (2) relevant projects.

b. Long Span Bridge, Hardening Work:

The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last twenty (20) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work. Long span bridge is defined herein as a bridge having a clear span of 1000 feet or greater.

Scope is defined as work (construction or rehabilitation) on long span bridges (suspension, cable stay and cantilevered truss bridges) that involves work zone traffic control (WZTC) and hardening of bridge structural members or components.

Magnitude is defined as a total cost of over $35M in a single project/contract.

Complexity is defined as bridge work involving the management and coordination of multiple trades and subcontractors in a major metropolitan area and including lifting of equipment or components of ten (10) tons or greater in weight. Submit at least one

(1) relevant project. Additional consideration will be given to submissions of more than one (1) relevant project.

c. Intumescent Mastic Fireproofing: The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last fifteen (15) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work. Scope is defined as work applying intumescent mastic coatings (fireproofing). Magnitude is defined as a total cost of over $1M in a single project/contract. Complexity is defined as application of intumescent mastic coatings involving the management and coordination of two (2) or more trades and/or subcontractors in a major metropolitan area. Complexity is further defined as the Offeror and/or key subcontractor demonstrating the ability to perform surface preparation or coating application in accordance w/ the certifications defined by AISC 201-06 SPE; ISO 9001; SSPC QP 1, SSPC QP2 Category A or B; SSPC QP 3.

(Offerors and/or key subcontractors will be required to remain certified while accomplishing any surface preparation or coating application on this project.) Submit at least three (3) relevant projects, showing a minimum of 3 years documented experience working on similar projects.

3.1.1.2 Offerors are limited to 20 pages total for this factor, which counts towards the overall 50 page limit for the Prequalification submission, and the overall 115 page limit for the Source Selection submission. Any pages submitted beyond this limit will be removed and will not be read or given any consideration.

3.1.1.3 Project completion is defined as the date the facility or work was turned over to or occupied by the owner.

3.1.1.4 If the Offeror submits experience for a proposed key subcontractor, the experience must be relevant to the firm’s role on this project. In addition, the Offeror must include documentation of an unequivocal teaming agreement or letter of commitment in this section of the response/proposal, signed by an authorized representative of the proposed subcontractor (Attachment 6).

3.1.1.5 For this factor, the Government will evaluate the degree of relevance of the demonstrated experience and will assess the level of risk of unsuccessful performance based on the extent of relevant experience presented.

3.1.1.5.1 Demonstrated experience of the Offeror (Prime Contractor) will be given greater weight than that of a proposed subcontractor.

3.1.1.5.2 Demonstrated experience as the Prime contractor on the previous project(s) will be given greater weight.

3.1.1.5.3 Projects that are more similar to this work will be given more weight. For example, single projects that include multiple aspects (Long span bridge, hardening work, and Coating) will be given greater weight than separate projects that include only one aspect of requested experience.

3.1.1.5.4 Offeror’s teams with a history of working together on previous projects are preferable to those with no prior experience working together, and examples showing such a history will be given greater weight.

3.1.1.5.5 Projects that exceed the magnitudes stated above may be given greater weight.

However, in any case, the Government will consider the nature of the project, duration, timeframe, as well as the scope and complexity in determining whether the previous project is a positive indicator of capability with respect to this work.

3.1.1.5.6 Other aspects of the project that may be considered in determining similarity include:

location (jurisdiction), agency and stakeholder coordination requirements, security requirements, safety and quality control criteria, type of contract (e.g. Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable), and other project constraints affecting complexity.

3.1.1.5.7 Projects completed by affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, or similar will be given less or no weight.

3.1.1.5.8 The submitted projects should demonstrate experience with traffic lane closures and work zone traffic control / maintenance and protection of traffic. Not demonstrating such experience will be considered a significant weakness.

3.1.3.5.9 Rating Guidelines for Factor 1:

For the Prequalification phase, this will be a Go/No-Go Factor as described below.

(The rating procedure will be different for an Offeror’s Source Selection RFP proposal as it will be a true evaluation as described throughout 3.1.1).

Go: The Specialized Experience of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation provides the minimum number of relevant example projects required in 3.1.1.1, as determined by the PQEB using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.3.5. The Offeror demonstrates sufficient prior experience w/ work zone traffic control on the example projects submitted for the relevant sub-factors in 3.1.1.

No Go: The Specialized Experience of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation does not provide the minimum number of relevant example projects required in 3.1.1.1, as determined by the PQEB using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.3.5, or the Offeror does not demonstrate sufficient prior experience w/ work zone traffic control on the example projects submitted for the relevant sub-factors in 3.1.1.

The Government will not allow an Offeror that receives a rating of NO GO in this factor to proceed to the Source Selection phase.

3.1.2 FACTOR 2 (VOLUME 1, TAB B) - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR’S TEAM

3.1.2.1 Provide resumes for the personnel proposed for the key positions identified below. These positions must be staffed by the Prime contractor. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the project examples cited in Factor 1. If re-assignment of personnel is considered possible, provide alternate professionals in each assignment.

For each person, provide a brief resume using the Key Personnel Resume Form in Attachment 2.

3.1.2.2 Project Superintendent (Specification Section 01 30 00). The project superintendent is the individual primarily responsible for managing and coordinating day-to-day production and schedule adherence on the project. The superintendent is required to attend partnering meetings, and quality control meetings. The superintendent or qualified alternative must be on-site at all times during the performance of this contract until the work is completed and accepted, and is responsible for all construction and related activities at the site, including quality and production, except as otherwise acceptable to the Contracting Officer.

The Project Superintendent should have a minimum of ten (10) years on-site construction experience, with experience as a Project Superintendent on heavy construction/long span bridge projects as defined in Factor 1. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1 and have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance. The individual must be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings. The qualification requirements for the alternate superintendent are the same as for the project superintendent. The Contracting Officer may request proof of the superintendent's qualifications at any point in the project if the performance of the superintendent is in question.

3.1.2.3 Project Manager: The Project Manager shall have a minimum of ten (10) years construction experience, with experience as a Project Manager on heavy construction/long span bridge projects as defined in Factor 1. The Project Manager must also be a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of New York. Additional consideration will be given to Project Managers with experience dealing with railways (Amtrak, NYCTA, MTA, etc.).

3.1.2.4 Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager (Specification Section 01 45 00.00

10). Identify as CQC System Manager an individual within the onsite work organization at the site of the work who shall be responsible for overall management of CQC and have the authority to act in all CQC matters for the Contractor.

The CQC System Manager must have a Bachelor of Science from an accredited engineering, architecture, or a construction management college or a state Professional Engineer’s license and possess a minimum of four (4) years construction experience (including one (1) year as a quality control representative) as an employee of the Offeror on long span bridge projects as defined in Factor 1.

Alternately, the CQC System Manager may be a construction person and possess a minimum of eight (8) years construction experience in related work (including one (1) year as a quality control representative) as an employee of the Offeror on long span bridge projects as defined in Factor 1.

The CQC System Manager will be required to be on site at all times during construction and is employed by the prime Contractor. The CQC System Manager is assigned no other duties. The prime contractor will be required to identify an alternate to serve in the event of the CQC System Manager's absence. The requirements for the alternate are the same as the CQC System Manager.

3.1.2.5 Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) (EM 385-1-1 01.A.17 and Specification Section 01 35 26). The Contractor shall provide an SSHO that meets the requirements of EM 385- 1-1 Section 1 and all associated subparagraphs. The SSHO must ensure that the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.16 are met for the project. The SSHO shall be responsible for managing, implementing and enforcing the Contractor’s Safety and Health Program.

During construction, the SSHO or an equally-qualified Alternate SSHO must be at the work site at all times to implement and administer the Contractor's safety program and government-accepted Accident Prevention Plan. The Alternate SSHO must meet the same training, experience, and qualifications requirements specified for the SSHO.

USACE views this as a “complex or high hazard project”; consequently the SSHO shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of safety-related work with at least five (5) years’ experience on heavy construction projects as defined in Factor 1. They shall also have completed the OSHA 30 hour construction safety course (or the prescribed equivalent) and document performance of 24 hours in formal safety training for every four (4) years of experience. Additional consideration will be given to a proposed SSHO who has at least two (2) years of experience in the employ of the Offeror and/or has previously worked on a project with other proposed key personnel. Please note the solicitation will require the contractor to provide one (1) SSHO per bridge if at any point more than one bridge is physically being worked on at a time.

3.1.2.6 For this factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the qualifications and experience described on the individual resumes are commensurate with the requirements for the proposed role on this project; and will assess the level of risk of unsuccessful performance based on the depth and breadth of relevant experience and credentials presented. If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference.

Examples of aspects of resumes that the Government places a higher value on include years of relevant experience, higher level credentials such as Masters versus Bachelors, years of service with the Offeror, and experience on any of the projects presented in Factor 1.

Note: Other sections of the solicitation may identify additional criteria for these and other key personnel. The Government’s evaluation does not relieve the awarded contractor from compliance with any and all criteria of the solicitation regardless of the rating assigned for this factor. Additionally, the level of qualifications and experience submitted in the accepted proposal or that required by the Solicitation, whichever is greater, is the minimum standard for any substitution.

Offerors are not limited to a set number of pages for this factor, but the factor’s total page count will count towards the overall 50 page limit for the Prequalification submission, and the overall 115 page limit for the Source Selection submission.

3.1.2.7 Rating Guidelines for Factor 2:

For the Prequalification phase, this will be a Go/No-Go Factor as described below. (The rating procedure will be different for an Offeror’s Source Selection RFP proposal as it will be a true evaluation as described throughout 3.1.2).

Go: The Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation demonstrate that the Project Superintendent(s), Project Manager(s), CQC Systems Manager(s), and

SSHO(‘s) meet the minimum requirements, and do not give the PQEB any lower than a satisfactory level of confidence as described in 5.7, using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.2.

No Go: The Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation is either missing one (1) or more of the required positions, or one (1) or more of the required positions does NOT meet the minimum requirements, or does not give the PQEB at least a satisfactory level of confidence as described in 5.7, using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.2.

The Government will not allow an Offeror that receives a rating of NO GO in this factor to proceed to the Source Selection phase.

3.1.3 FACTOR 3 (VOLUME 2, TAB B) - PAST PERFORMANCE OF OFFEROR’S TEAM

3.1.3.1 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the Government’s RFI and

RFP/solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its RFI response and RFP proposal for Factor 1 “Specialized Experience of Offeror’s Team”. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the response and/or proposal closing dates, the Offeror should complete and submit with the response and/or proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Matthew Lubiak, via email at Matthew.E.Lubiak@usace.army.mil , prior to the response and/or proposal closing dates.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors are not limited to a set number of pages for this factor, but the factor’s total page count (other than the PPQ’s which are exempt from the page limit) will count towards the overall 50 page limit for the Prequalification submission, and the overall 115 page limit for the Source Selection submission.

3.1.3.2 In addition, the Offeror is required to provide information on past projects (within the past seven (7) years) in which they have been terminated for default or issued a CURE NOTICE or have been issued a negative past performance rating (either interim or final) and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated, issued a cure notice or received a negative rating and what actions their organization have taken or would take to ensure that their performance on this project will not warrant similar action. Offerors may also include performance recognition documents, not necessarily related to those projects submitted for Factor 1, received within the last seven (7) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

3.1.3.3 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System mailto:Matthew.E.Lubiak@usace.army.mil

(CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s response or proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the Procurement and Sourcing Solutions Portal (PASSPort) Disclosure Filing (formerly known as the New York City Vendor Exchange (VENDEX)), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

3.1.3.4 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.

3.1.3.5 Evaluation Criteria:

3.1.3.5.1 The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror's probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s recent (completed no longer than twenty (20) years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the response or proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact Offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

3.1.3.5.2 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the Offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The projects will include those submitted under the Factor 1 as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate response or proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

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

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

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

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

3.1.3.5.3 The Government will next consider how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The

Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this response/proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the response/proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

3.1.3.5.4 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered "Unknown Confidence".

3.1.3.5.5 Rating Guidelines for Factor 3:

For the Prequalification phase, this will be a Go/No-Go Factor as described below. (The rating procedure will be different for an Offeror’s Source Selection RFP proposal as it will be a true evaluation as described throughout 3.1.3).

Go: Past Performance of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation meets at a minimum requirement, performance that is defined as somewhat relevant in 3.1.3.5.2, does not contain terminations for default, cure notices or negative performance ratings, and/or does not give the PQEB any lower than a satisfactory level of confidence as described in 5.7, using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.3.5. An unknown level of confidence as described in 3.1.3.5.4 shall also permit the Offeror a “Go” rating for this factor.

No Go: Past Performance of the Offeror’s Team submitted for evaluation does NOT meet, at a minimum requirement, performance that is defined as somewhat relevant in 3.1.3.5.2, does contain either terminations for default, cure notices, or negative performance rating(s), and/or does give the PQEB a lower than a satisfactory level of confidence as described in 5.7, using the evaluation criteria in 3.1.3.5.

3.1.4 FACTOR 4 (VOLUME 3) - SECURITY ASSURANCE PLAN

3.1.4.1 The Offeror shall identify/submit an administrative security program plan which outlines how the Offeror will accomplish the security of project information and documents (solicitation documents, specifications; drawings and plans; correspondence, etc.) and other related information throughout solicitation, award, construction and closeout. This plan shall address the Offeror’s primary administrative facilities, subcontractor and supplier locations, as well as security measures to be taken at a project site, and any field offices and associated facilities. This project is not classified; however, the scope of work is considered highly sensitive in nature and is designated “For Official Use Only” (FOUO).” Any and all project information will only be permitted to be disseminated to those with a “need to know” and a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). As such the plan shall include but not be limited to the following areas and be inclusive of controls to be required of any and all known or potential subcontractors, suppliers and joint-venture partners:

a. Office Physical Security Plan (Access Control; Key Control, Lighting; Intrusion

Detection System (IDS); Security Guards; Facility Security Checks; Employee Identification; etc.)

b. Personnel Security (Employee Assurance)

c. Operational Security (OPSEC; policies/procedures related to the identification and safeguarding of sensitive information, including electronic information; security awareness instruction for employees; preventing accidental disclosure of sensitive information; limiting access to and discussion of sensitive information to those with a need to know; avoiding discussion of sensitive information in public places or in locations where it may be overheard by persons without a need to know, etc.)

d. Automated Information Security (AIS)

e. Telecommunications

f. Media/Press Relations Policy

g. Online and Social Media Policy

h. Document Control (Receipt; Storage; Reproduction; Internal Dissemination; External

Transmittal; and Destruction) of both hard copy and electronic documents

Note: The Government will require that security guards be provided for work conducted in certain vital areas, which will be further defined in the contract technical specifications.

3.1.4.2 Additionally, as applicable, Offerors should submit any past or current record of having been granted a “Facility Clearance” by the Department of Defense Security Service relative to the safekeeping of classified information on past or existing contracts.

Offerors should also state whether any of their proposed key personnel (those identified in 3.1.4.4) have ever had their security clearance pulled on any prior projects.

3.1.4.3 The Offeror’s security program will be evaluated to insure their proposed security assurance plan (all inclusive: administrative polices combined with physical measures) as articulated will adequately protect project information in accordance with the following references:

a. Army Regulation AR 380-5, dated 29 September 2000

b. AR 25-55 Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Program

c. DoD Instruction 8582.01 Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD Information Systems.

3.1.4.4 All identified employees of the Offerors’ team involved in the response or proposal process (including those from known subcontractors or suppliers) will be vetted by the government (security background check) prior to moving on to consideration for the Source Selection phase. Results of this determination will be applied to the rating guidelines for Factor 4 in 3.1.4.6.

3.1.4.5. The following personnel for an Offeror’s team will be required to sign and submit Non-

Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) prior to moving on to consideration for the Source Selection phase: key personnel identified in Factor 2, a principal of the firm, and all other employees involved in preparation of proposals for this solicitation, including any known subcontractors or suppliers involved in preparation of proposals for this solicitation.

These NDA’s shall be submitted in the Prequalification phase as part of the Offeror’s Security Assurance Plan. Results of this determination will be applied to the rating guidelines for Factor 4 in 3.1.4.6.

3.1.4.6 Rating Guidelines for Factor 4:

This is a Go/No-Go Factor as described below.

Go: The Offeror’s Security Assurance Plan demonstrates a clear understanding of Information, Personnel, Physical, Operational, Telecommunications and Automated Information Security Programs, and the ability to adequately protect sensitive contract documentation, information and facilities. Offerors must also pass vetting by government in 3.1.4.4 and provide signed NDA’s as per 3.1.4.5 to receive this rating.

No Go: The Offeror’s Security Assurance Plan does not demonstrates a clear understanding of Information, Personnel, Physical, Operational, Telecommunications and Automated Information Security Programs, and the ability to adequately protect sensitive contract documentation, information and facilities. Offerors can also receive this rating solely by not passing the vetting procedure as described in 3.1.4.4, or not providing signed NDA’s as described in 3.1.4.5.

Note: Offerors are not limited to a set number of pages for this factor, but the factor’s total page count (other than NDA’s which are exempt from the page limit) will count towards the overall 50 page limit for the Prequalification submission.

3.1.5 FACTOR 5 (VOLUME 4) - BONDING CAPABILITY

3.1.5.1 The Offeror shall submit bonding capabilities. As a minimum the Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to bond a single project or concurrent project with a minimum total bonding capacity of $335M for a single project and shall provide a letter from the bonding company stating what the firm's single project and aggregate bonding capabilities are.

3.1.5.2 Rating Guidelines for Factor 5:

This is a Go/No-Go Factor as described below.

Go: Offeror demonstrates the ability to bond a single project or concurrent project with a minimum total bonding capacity of $335M for a single contract.

No Go: Offeror does not demonstrate the ability to bond a single project or concurrent project with a minimum total bonding capacity of $335M for a single contract.

Note: Offerors are not limited to a set number of pages for this factor, but the factor’s total page count will count towards the overall 50 page limit for the Prequalification submission.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR SOURCE SELECTION

Note: Factors 1-3 must be resubmitted by Offerors as part of their Source Selection RFP proposal.

Source Selection Evaluation Factors

Factor Location Description Summary

Factor 1 Vol.

Tab A

Specialized Experience of Offeror’s Team

Examples of Previous Projects Completed by the Offeror. See ¶3.1.1

Factor 2 Tab B

Qualifications of the Offeror’s Team

Resumes for Project Superintendent, Project Manager, CQC Systems Manager, and SSHO. See ¶3.1.2

Factor 3 Vol. 2 Past Performance of Offeror’s Team

Questionnaires from Previous Clients. See ¶3.1.3

Factor 6 Vol. 5 Organizational/ Technical Approach & Schedule

Organizational Structure (personnel and prime/sub roles and responsibilities);

Technical Approach for Construction; and Schedule. See ¶4.1

Factor 7 Vol. 6 Personnel/Physical Security Assurance Site-specific Security Plan. See ¶4.2

Factor 8 Vol.

Tab A

Small Business Participation Plan

Submit information on planned SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, and WOSB who would participate, including type of service and dollar amount. See ¶4.3

Tab B

Past Utilization of Small Business

Past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Note: this is different…