W912DS21R0008 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Answ er questions from prospective contractors for informational purposes only.

2) Include AT/OPSEC information. 3) Update clauses and provisions. 4) Extend the bidder inquiry from 17 June to 21 June. The proposal date remains unchanged.

NOTE: Offerors must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by the date specified in the proposal (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods: in the space provided on the SF1442, by separate letter, or by signing block 15 below . FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENTS BY THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS (FAR 15.208).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912DS21R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-May-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Jun-2021

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 16-300

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been added by full text:

AT/OPSEC

Pre-screen candidates using E-Verify Program. Proposed language: The Contractor must pre-screen Candidates using the E-verify Program(http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify) website to meet the established employment eligibility requirements. The Vendor must ensure that the Candidate has two valid forms of Government issued identification prior to enrollment to ensure the correct information is entered into the E-verify system. An initial list of verified/eligible Candidates must be provided to the COR no later than 3 business days after the initial contract award." *When contracts are with individuals, the individuals will be required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, with the designated Government representative. This Form will be provided to the Contracting Officer and shall become part of the official contract file.

The following have been modified:

BIDDER INQUIRIES

OFFEROR INQUIRIES: Submission of inquiries will open on 28-May-2021. Please submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org. Submission of inquires will close 21-June-2021 11:59 AM EDT. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received after this date. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this solicitation contains an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound;

immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to award this contract based on the initial bid, as received, without discussions. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via e-mail, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on beta.sam.gov in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

Bidder Inquiry Key: 536D7M-CWX37W Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

2. Identify the Agency as USACE.

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

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you would like to use for communication.

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

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

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

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 1 through 3: same as above.

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking for the answer to your Secret Question.

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

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SOLICITATION SECTION 00 22 10

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD, EVALUATION CRITERIA,

RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITIONS

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PROPOSALS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

4.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED PAST EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFERORS TEAM

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.3 DEFINITIONS

7.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.5 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

FORM A1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

FORM A2 – PAST EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OF PRIME CONTRACTOR

FORM A3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

FORM A4 – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL

8.0 STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

9.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is the only proposal required, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, for all work described in this solicitation. 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 top rated proposal from technical evaluations and the best value to the Government from the price proposal evaluations. The technical evaluations and price evaluations will have equal weight in the selection process.

In the selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as ”offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction contract resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit - This procurement is a Total Small Business set-aside. Only small businesses per the size standard for the applicable NAICS code may submit offers.

2.2 Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation only by e-mail to:

E-MAIL ADDRESS: Adrian.J.Stafford-Browne@usace.army.mil Include the solicitation number, and project title with any questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office not later than 7 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. TELEPHONE

INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive 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.

2.3 Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. The written portion of the proposal shall not exceed 50 pages. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, pro forma information, past performance information, team agreements and/or Joint Venture agreements. All sheets shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper. Each page shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch margins all around. Each page of Volume I shall be numbered sequentially.

2.4 Joint Ventures

a. When an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any financial surety instrument that is required, unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Signatures on the written agreement designating one member of the joint venture as having legal authority to bind all other members of the joint venture must be executed by the duly authorized representatives of the respective joint venture members. All joint venture members will remain jointly and severally liable for all actions, representations, and other activities by the joint venture and by other joint venture members in connection with this solicitation and subsequent contract. A copy of the joint venture agreement and agreement providing evidence of the authority to legally bind all other members of the joint venture must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

b. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and other information about each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture. The experience of each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures must also submit the following additional documentation:

1) A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

i. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

ii. The structure of the joint venture and decision making responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work under the contract.

iii. Identification of key personnel having the authority to bind the joint venture to any and all agreements, including any subcontracts, executed by the joint venture.

iv. Identification of party or parties maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposit of all receipts, keeping the books and records of the joint venture, and paying applicable taxes for the joint venture.

v. Identification of party or parties having overall control of the joint venture.

c. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture entities and identify the entity, or whether they are hired directly as employees of the joint venture.

d. A complete and legally binding document with all information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included in Volume I of the proposal.

2.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

2.5.1 Proposal Requirements and Submission

Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. 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). Offerors must meet all technical portions (construction criteria) of the RFP. The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical, or other, requirements of the RFP.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror. Therefore the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a. Proposals shall be typed and easy to read. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear.

b. Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein.

Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

The written portion of the proposal shall not exceed 50 pages.

c. Proposals shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

d. Offerors shall verify that the information for the Point-of-Contacts located in Form A1, is current, correct and complete including email address and telephone number, and fax number if available.

f. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer (Standard Form 1442) for this solicitation including verification of all amendments received.

g. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

h. Failing to submit attachments or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and contact the Contract Specialist if instructions are not understood.

2.5.2 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.

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, proposals must be submitted via the DoD SAFE website (https://safe.apps.mil/). FAXED OR EMAILED PROPOSALS, MODIFICATIONS THERETO, OR CANCELLATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. However, proposals may be withdrawn in writing by letter or e-mail. Any written notice to withdraw an offer sent to this office must be received in the office designated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for receipt of offers not later than the exact date and time set for receipt of proposals.

2.5.3 Submission Deadline

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

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, proposals must be submitted via the DoD SAFE website (https://safe.apps.mil/). FAXED OR EMAILED PROPOSALS, MODIFICATIONS THERETO, OR

CANCELLATIONS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED.

2.5.4 Incurring Costs

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

2.5.5 Format Requirements

All proposals shall contain the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Major Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. Note that a letter of commitment from the Subcontractor is required in order for the Subcontractor to be considered in the evaluation. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. 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 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 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Relative Importance Factors

Most Important

Factor 1 - Specialized Past Experience

Note: Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 and 3.

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 equally important.

4.0 TAB A – FACTOR 1: RELEVANT SPECIALIZED PAST EXPERIENCE –

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

To demonstrate recent, relevant specialized past experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms – (Attachment 2) to list their construction experience of similar scope, complexity and magnitude. For the construction contractor experience -submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than five (5) projects that have been completed and turned over or at least 75% construction complete. All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that construction completion should be no more than seven (7) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

The projects shall meet the descriptions of scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined below.

Letters of commitment (Signed by both the Subcontractor and Offeror) are required in order for the Government to consider Subcontractor experience in the proposal evaluation. Other divisions within the Offer’s company may be considered as subcontractors for the submitting division.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA- RELEVANCY

The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience demonstrated in the submitted EXPERIENCE INFORMATION FACT SHEET, Form A2. The projects submitted should include the following criteria. Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet many or all of the criteria would be given a higher degree of relevancy.

Projects shall be considered similar in scope if they involve new construction/additions within a cemetery or columbarium facility of similar size and scope. If the project is not of similar size and scope, it is still considered similar if it demonstrates any construction within a cemetery or columbarium.

Projects shall be considered similar in complexity if they contain the management and coordination of a multi-disciplined construction team to complete projects that included the majority of the following:

demolition including removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials.

Projects shall be considered similar in magnitude if they are over $5,000,000. The magnitude shall be that of the project, not the subcontract amount if it is an experience as a subcontractor. However the subcontractor’s role must be clearly defined in the project experience submission.

The Offeror shall demonstrate past experience by providing recent and relevant projects involving work in a cemetery/columbarium. If this experience is missing then experience in site demolition and development would be acceptable. The Offeror shall submit at least two (2) relevant projects of the 5 projects that demonstrate not less than 75% complete or physically within the last seven (7) years.

The other projects can show the Offerors ability to complete other projects of similar size, scope, and complexity. Projects for the Federal Government are preferred but not required. Each project shall demonstrate similarities to scope, complexity and magnitude to receive satisfactory rating for this factor. In the relevant projects submitted by the offeror it shall be clearly state the projects scope, magnitude, complexity, Offerors involvement (% of work performed, prime/sub), and contract type (Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build).

The Government will consider the combination of experience demonstrated by the five (5) projects. Proposals will be highly rated when the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in all or nearly all of the aspects defining relevance and listed below. Where this combination of experience includes the following, the proposal may be given strengths (the following list does not encompass all possible strengths):

- Projects demonstrating multi-disciplined construction teams consisting of the majority of the disciplines listed under the complexity definition.

- The Offeror acted as a prime contractor in at least three (3) of the example experiences;

- The Offeror presents experiences in at least one (1) project performed for any federal agencies with a value of at least $5,000,000;

- The example experiences demonstrate previous teaming experience between current proposal team members.

- Projects with magnitudes over $5.0M. Projects demonstrating experience where the construction site had an active customer on it where a high level of coordination was necessary for both the construction to be successful and the customer to remain operational.

Note: Completed and physically turnover is defined as in this solicitation customer has accepted project and Offeror has completely demobilized from site.

Where this combination of experience includes the following, the proposal may be given strengths. OR weaknesses (the following list does not encompass all possible strengths or weaknesses):

Strengths may include the following:

- Experience working on a columbarium installation.

- Experience working on a Federal Cemetery installation

Weaknesses may include the following:

- Few or no projects are provided where the Offeror acted as Prime contractor.

- Example experience where the project amount was below $5.0M.

- Example experiences where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role was minor in comparison to the whole project.

- Example experiences are from proposed subcontractors in lieu of the Offeror.

- The example experiences do not demonstrate previous teaming experience between current proposal team members.

- Experience examples are not verifiable.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the including 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

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal", or "Unacceptable" to each factor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 2 - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR’S TEAM

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall identify the areas and percent of work (construction) they intend to self-perform and the areas and percent of work (construction) intend to subcontract along with the names of significant subcontractors.

Provide an Organization Chart showing Key Personnel for the Offeror's Construction Team. At a minimum, the organizational chart shall identify the Key Personnel, the contractor and significant subcontractor entities, their responsibilities, structure and lines of authority. At a minimum, the following Key personnel shall be identified by name within the chart: Contractor’s (Offeror’s) Project Manager;

Construction Quality Control Manager; Superintendent and Safety Manager. The Contractor (Offeror) shall develop its own chart, unique to and specific to their organization and team. Individual resumes in the format found in Attachment Form A4, Key Personnel Resume Form, shall be provided and that includes the following information:

a. Name.

b. Management title on this project.

c. Number of years with firm and other firms.

d. Number of years in this management title or role.

e. Specialization.

f. Education, apprenticeship, and relevant training.

g. Professional registration.

h. Specific experience and qualifications relevant to this project. Show dates so that the

Government can determine if the minimum number of years required for the position is met. Indicate the scope, magnitude and complexity of the experiences.

Expected roles and responsibilities of Key Personnel:

Contractor's Project Manager: (Overall Manager of the Project)

(1) Performs all project management duties of the project.

(2) Serves as the Governments' sole point of contact in all matters relating to work including, but not limited to, contract compliance, progress of work, overall project scheduling, financial matters, and change orders.

(3) Attends all job meetings.

(4) On-site a minimum of 80% of the time.

(5) The Overall Project Manager shall have a minimum of six years of project management experience in construction of new commercial, institutional, or industrial buildings with a magnitude of over $15M.

Construction Quality Control Manager: (Principal in Charge of Construction Quality Issues and Coordination of Construction Quality Control)

(1) The Contractor shall identify the Construction Quality Control Manager as an individual within his organization that is completely responsible for all Construction Quality Issues and shall perform coordination between the contractor, subcontractors, and any Independent Testing Labs and have the authority to act in all construction quality control matters for the prime contractor. During construction this person shall be onsite at all times performing Construction Quality Control duties to include, but not limited to, implementation of the three-phase inspection system for all aspects of the construction work specified. This person shall have complete authority in all aspects of Construction Quality control.

(2) The Construction Quality Control Manager shall meet one of the following requirements:

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

OR

b) Shall have a minimum of six years of construction experience at a minimum level of a project superintendent.

(3) Attends a bi-monthly coordination meeting during the construction phase to discuss coordination and quality issues.

(4) On-site at all times during construction performing construction quality control duties.

(5) Has no other duties except construction Quality Control.

(6) Directly employed by the prime contractor, or will be at the time of award with a signed letter of intention included.

(7) Reports directly to the President/Owner of the Prime Contractor.

Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) Offeror shall provide a SSHO that meets the requirements of EM 385-1-1 Section 1.

The SSHO must:

1. The SSHO must ensure that the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.16 are met for the project.

Provide a Safety oversight team that includes a minimum of one (1) person at each project site to function as the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). 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.

2. The SSHO and Alternate SSHO must have the required training, experience, and qualifications in accordance with EM 385-1-1 Section 01.A.17, and all associated sub-paragraphs.

3. Attend all job meetings.

4. Ensure subcontractor compliance with safety and health requirements.

5. On-site at all time during all construction activities.

6. Serves under, and reports directly to, the Contractor's Project Manager.

7. The SSHO shall have a minimum of five (5) years construction experience on new commercial, institutional, or industrial buildings with a magnitude of over $15M. They will also have a minimum of 2 projects that have asbestos abatement and other hazardous material remediation involved.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the proposal for this factor. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive.

Strengths may include the following:

Personnel with Professional registration Experience on similar projects exceeding 10 years Demonstrating that the personnel have worked together on previous similar projects Personnel with experience on US Army Corps of Engineers projects Personnel with experience on projects that are on occupied sites involving close user coordination and phasing.

Weaknesses may include the following:

Personnel experience is not on very similar projects.

5.3 Rating Guidelines for Factor 2:

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal", or "Unacceptable" to each factor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.0 TAB B – FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the Past Performance Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Your client should receive Form A2 with items 1 through 4 completed and the “Note” that appears on its reverse side as well as the “Adjective Rating and Definitions” that are used for the ratings in Form A3. 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 proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (FORM A2), 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, Contract Specialist prior to proposal closing date. 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) 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.

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.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE, have been terminated for default 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 issued a cure notice or negative rating and what actions their organization have taken or would take to ensure that their performance on this project will not warrant a similar cure notice or negative rating.

6.2 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 3

1.1.1 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 3

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM)

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:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2 EVALUATION

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

7.3 DEFINITIONS

7.3.1 Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A proposal containing a “deficiency” is unawardable.

7.3.2 Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7.3.3 Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7.3.4 Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

7.3.5 Significant Strength A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

7.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

7.4.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor(s). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the

Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2.

7.4.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

7.4.3 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor (except for the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

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

7.4.5 Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

7.4.6 Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

7.4.7 Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

7.4.8 Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

FOR

M A1

PROPOSAL

DATA

SHEET

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or A-E Contractor Administration Support System (ACASS) Database)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted.

Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each. If the Offeror has never done work with the Government, provide the Tax ID number (TIN).

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiat or's Address:

Negotiat or's Telephon e:

Negotiat or’s E-mail:

FORM A2

1. Project name and location (city, country)

2a. Name of Firm that performed this work (this should be the Offeror or one of the Offeror’s subcontractors)

2b. Offeror’s involvement in this project (write in “Prime”, “Subcontractor”, or “Joint-Venture Partner”) (if submitting subcontractor’s experience tell us what the subcontractor’s involvement was on the project)

3a. Project Owner’s name (Government Agency, commercial firm or other organization)

3b. Project Owner's complete address

4. Contract number of project 5. Date contract was signed

6. Date work was begun 7. Date work was completed or is scheduled for completion

8. Initial contract price (if this is experience where the Offeror is acting as a subcontractor, put amount of money the Offeror was responsible for and total contract amount).

USD $

9. Current Contract amount (if this is experience where the Offeror is acting as a subcontractor, put amount of money the Offeror was responsible for and total contract amount).

USD $

10a. Technical point of contact of the Project Owner (name, title, e-mail address, phone number and fax number)

10b. Contracting point of contact of the Project Owner (name, title, e-mail address, phone and fax numbers)

11. Description of Design and Construction work (describe scope of project and DETAILED nature and scope of work actually performed by the Offeror (or proposed Subcontractor). For additional explanation, please attach a continuation sheet.

12. Current status of the project (fill in % complete)

The work is % complete.

(If not 100%, indicate current status, on-schedule, behind, terminated for convenience, etc.)

13. English Speaking point of contact for Past Performance information (if different from Project Owner) (name, title, e-mail address, phone and fax numbers)

14. Explain any Problem(s) Encountered and Solution(s) to Resolve them. If the initial completion date or initial contract amount changed during performance of the work, or there were any safety issues, the Offeror must provide an explanation here. If no problems were encountered and the contract was completed within the original schedule and budget, state so here.

For additional explanation, please attach a continuation sheet.

FORM A3

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 THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

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…