W912DS22R0001 - Amendment 0004.pdf

W912DS22R0001

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. Revise and reissue Section 00 22 10 - Selection Procedures and Basis of Aw ard (changes are highlighted in yellow ).

2. Revise and reissue draw ings.

3. Provide responses to bidder inquires for informational purposes only.

Offeror 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 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

J 1 37

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Mar-2022

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912DS22R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Jan-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Mar-2022

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 SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF

AWARD, EVALUATION CRITERIA, RATING SYSTEM AND

DEFINITIONS

SECTION 00 22 10 -SELECTION PROCEDURES

AND BASIS OF AWARD

(Best Value Trade Off)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION

FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT

DURATION, PHASING AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL / TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.4 VOLUME 2 - FACTOR 4 - TAB A - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

PLAN

5.5 VOLUME 2 - FACTOR 4 - TAB B - PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL

BUSINESS

6.0 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL

DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

6.2 TAB B – BID BOND

6.3 TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.3 DEFINITIONS

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME

CONTRACTOR OR KEY

SUBCONTRACTOR

4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

1. OVERVIEW

This is a "Best Value Tradeoff" solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 for the Construction of the FY22 ISN located at Fort Hamilton, NY. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible firm, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2. BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. This is a Best Value Tradeoff procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer have determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within an acceptable range. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government will be performed as follows:

The Total Evaluated Price used for purposes of the tradeoff analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and optional CLINS. The tradeoff analysis will be conducted, and a-best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror. The magnitude of construction is between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.

2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS & MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA

3.1. Submit proposals initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that firms will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials:

Note: Proposals shall be submitted electronically. Refer to Instructions to Offerors, for complete instructions on submitting proposal electronically.

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. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper. Schedules, drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch paper, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count.

Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around.

Instructions for Submitting Electronic Proposals (see additional instructions in Section 00 21 00 Instructions): In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all bids shall be submitted electronically through e-mail to monica.c.chahary@usace.army.mil and nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. Please see full instructions in Section 00 21 00 – Electronic Bid Submissions and Electronic Proposals.

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

3.3. VOLUME 1– MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

A Factor 1: Past Performance No page limit

B Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule

C Factor 3: Organizational / Technical Approach 20

A Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan No page limit

2 B Factor 4: Past Utilization of Small Business No page limit

3 A Factor 5: Price (Standard Form 1442 and Contract Line Item Schedule)

No page limit

3 B Factor 5: Bid Guarantee No page limit

3 C Factor 5: Self-Performed Work No page limit defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract.

This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

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

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

2. In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3. In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

4. In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information. The Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the sub-contractor will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

5. In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience may be submitted by any segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this

RFP.

6. In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé is a Small and Large Business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

4. PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS,

RATINGS, AND ELEMENTS

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance Vol 1 TAB A Factor 1 Past Performance Factors 1-4 are in descending order of importance.

Vol 1 TAB B Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule

Vol 1 TAB C Factor 3 Organizational/Technical Approach

4.2 VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

Vol 2 Factor 4 Small Business Participation Plan & Past Utilization of Small Business

4.3 VOLUME 3 – PRICE

Vol 3 Factor 5 Price, Bid Guarantee & Self-

Performed Work All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

EVALUATION RATINGS:

General: The Government will review the proposals and evaluate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the SSA/Contracting Officer will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

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

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.

Table 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

Table 2 Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Technical Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties, 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 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:

Table 3

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 4

Small Business Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

5. VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: The first factor consists of examples of Past Performance that meet the relevant magnitude, scope, and complexity described below. This Volume 1 also includes a Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule with narrative and an Organizational/Technical Approach with narrative.

5.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror will provide past performance information on relevant projects (see section below on Relevant Past Performance) submitted using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s) or other personnel with knowledge of performance, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other sources.

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

Less than satisfactory performance information includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, the Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the past performance information available.

Recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (75% complete) within the past ten (10) years from issuance of the solicitation. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current project, although past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the relevancy criteria for Factor 1.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects within the past ten (10) years from issuance of the solicitation that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a Cure Notice and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

5.1.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the solicitation based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts:

Rating Guidelines for Factor 1: Refer to Table 1 and Table 2, above (Section III).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral confidence”) past performance.

RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE:

5.1.2 Offeror must submit past performance for a minimum of three (3) projects and a maximum of six (6) projects total. The projects should be similar to the project described in this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity. All projects must have been completed no earlier than ten (10) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

SIMILAR PROJECTS ARE DEFINED AS:

Relevant Scope: The new construction or major/total renovation of a complex facility such as a mainframe computer facility, a data center, a server farm facility, an information systems facility, or other similar facilities, with at least 5,000 Square Feet floor area.

Relevant Magnitude: projects of at least seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000.00) in construction contract cost.

Relevant Complexity: A project involving all technical disciplines including architecture, structural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, telecommunications, fire protection, etc.

Projects do not have to meet all criteria to be evaluated. The more criteria met in an example project the more relevant it will be considered.

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant performance of the contractor. Federal Government project performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project performance.

1. The government may give additional consideration for the following:

a. Projects demonstrating performance working at Fort Hamilton. NY

b. Projects demonstrating performance working within small confines with limited staging areas.

c. Projects showing the construction of facilities with secret or encrypted federal government telecommunications/information systems.

d. Projects showing performance working with USACE.

e. Performance demonstrates the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors working together.

f. Prime contractor performance working as a prime contractor.

g. Projects demonstrating self-performance by the prime contractor.

h. Foundation excavation/construction in close proximity to other structures.

5.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION,

PHASING, AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.2.1 Submission Requirements:

5.2.1.1 Planning and Scheduling. Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan the project and how the schedule will be used to manage construction from notice to proceed to completion. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth.

5.2.1.1.1 Submit a summary level schedule for new construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, and clearly labeled. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration.

Give attention to the following features:

(1) The schedule shall at a minimum include the following activities: submission of quality control and safety plans, procurement for long lead material items, construction of site and foundation, superstructure, building envelope, mechanical systems, electrical systems, telecommunications systems, and whole building commissioning.

(2) Submission must include the following for each activity: activity duration, early start, early finish, late start and late finish, float, predecessors and successors. This information can be provided in table format or graphically.

(3) Schedule should show turnover of new facility activities. The time to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor's CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor- Government turnover inspection.

(4) Submit narrative discussing the project’s critical path. Ensure critical path is shown graphically. Discuss critical path activities that have the greatest risk to project delivery. Discuss how your schedule mitigates those risks and what measures you will take to ensure the project is delivered on time.

(5) Submit narrative discussing submittal procedures and linkage of submittal register to scheduled activities. Discuss how the schedule accounts for management of the submittal process and lead time is reflected in the submittal register to meet activity early start date. Discuss internal procedures for preventing late submittal submission to minimize time growth.

(6) Constraints: Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, ingress and egress, limited parking, limited laydown areas, etc.).

5.2.1.2 PHASING: Submit a Site Phasing Plan for construction activities. This plan must address laydown areas, parking areas, trailer areas, and construction activity zones for each phase of the project to include site work, foundation work, and building construction. The phasing plan will consist of both a narrative and site diagram showing locations of required activities.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

5.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the plan focused on logic, task duration and critical path. The Government will evaluate the offeror's understanding and the capability to execute the project as presented in the narrative required in the submission. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive.

5.2.2.2 Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule.

The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of all elements required in the submission and the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.

5.2.2.3 Phasing: The Government will evaluate the phasing plans for the site work, and the building. The phasing plans will be evaluated to determine if they are advantageous to the Government or if they add additional risk for unsuccessful performance.

5.3 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL/TECHNICAL

APPROACH

Provide information that describes the Offeror's organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements of the solicitation.

Organizational Approach: Describe what firms will perform the work, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that will be established. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including construction activities for each major feature. The Offeror should identify any specific firms chosen as key subcontractors and list specific features of work to be performed; or indicate self-performance. In order for a firm other than the Offeror to contribute to the Offeror’s organizational approach, document unequivocal teaming arrangements with firms(s) and key subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a chart illustrating the organization including the proposed quality control group(s). Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, and their job/position title within the organization.

The qualifications of firms submitted as part of the Offeror’s teaming arrangement(s) as part of their proposal will become part of the contract awarded.

Should there be extenuating circumstances where a submitted firm is unable to perform, an alternate firm of equal or greater qualification may be proposed, subject to the Contracting Officer’s written approval. The substitute must be of equal or greater technical qualifications. The Government reserves the right to deny the substitution of firms.

Technical Approach for Construction: Describe the approach for performing the full scope of work in the contract, including specific scope features and specific constraints. The offeror must provide, and the Government will evaluate, the proposed construction/installation approach employed by the Offeror in schedule management, material/equipment delivery and management, labor management, cost management, site security and personnel assurance. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the construction. Describe the role and interaction of the construction team during construction, addressing elements such as schedule management, material/equipment delivery and management, labor management, cost management, site security and personnel assurance system management, progress meetings, documentation, and quality control.

Describe quality control procedures during construction. Include a description of quality control inspection and submittal register control.

Evaluation Criteria for Factor 3:

The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding and capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below.

Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participants’ contributions to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Technical Approach for Construction: The Government places a higher value on an Offeror that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site fabrication and susceptibility to inclement weather delays. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction. Additional consideration will be given to proposals that demonstrate Offerors self-performing more than 20% of the work.

5.4 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 – TAB A - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

(SBPP)

The Offeror shall use Attachment 4 as a form to provide the following required information in a clear concise manner.

5.4.1 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated.

Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) which specifies the Offeror’s level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/participation in performance of this requirement. An SBPP is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans.

All Offerors shall identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), and Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) would be utilized in the performance of this proposed contract. For small businesses, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code applicable to this solicitation, the Offerors shall identify their own participation as a SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, or WOSB and it will be considered in evaluating the Participation of Small Business Factor. See Section 01 30 00, “Administrative Requirements.”

Address the following information in detail. Provide the names of SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZONE SB, SDB, and WOSB who would participate in the proposed contract, identifying specific type of services or supplies to be subcontracted by Small Businesses, and the estimated total dollars for such work.

Large business contractors may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business contractors may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses. A small business prime is not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation goals.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

5.4.2 GOALS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERNS

(a) Application. This clause applies to all Offerors submitting proposals.

(b) Goals. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the following goals for Small Business Participation, reasonable and achievable for the performance of the resultant contract:

(i) 12% of total contract amount with small business concerns (SB).

(c) Socio-Economic Goals: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the following socio-economic goals for Small Business Participation, reasonable and achievable for the performance of the resultant contract:

(i) 4% of total contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (SDB, including 8(a)).

(ii) 3% of total contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by women (WOSB).

(iii) 2% of total contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans (SDVOSB).

(iv) 1% of total contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by HUBZones.

(v) 2% of total contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans (VOSB).

Note: Socio-Economic goal percentages listed are to be part of the total percentage submitted to meet or exceed the 12% small business goal identified in 5.5.2(b)(i) (not in addition to).

Note: Offerors shall provide both the percentage and total dollars to be performed by small businesses and each subcategory (based on the total contract value). The Small Business Deputy will verify the total proposed price (not individual cost elements), and any subcontracting information with the Cost/Price team to ensure the dollar amounts are consistent with what is being proposed in the SBPP. If an Offeror does not use the value of their total acquisition to base their participation goals on it will result in a deficiency.

Note: If an Offeror is unable to meet the full RFP participation goals for any of the socioeconomic categories (e.g., HUBZone, WOSB, etc.), the Offeror must provide an explanation as to why the participation goal(s) cannot be met and/or what actions will be taken to increase the participation for any of the socioeconomic participation goal categories the Offeror is unable to meet.

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c) the following elements will be considered in evaluating an Offeror’s Participation Plan:

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

The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

Identification of the complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals, as indicated herein in terms of percentage of the total value of the acquisition;

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.

See Table 4 in Section III, Paragraph 4, for the Small Business ratings criteria.

5.5 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 – TAB B - PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

1) Submission Requirements: Provide a description of the Offeror’s performance, over the past ten (10) calendar years, in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, including description and available documentation of the methods employed to promote small business utilization and the internal methods used to monitor such utilization. Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan (Volume 2), also required in the Source Selection phase, and the Subcontracting Plan required prior to award if requested by the Contracting Officer, are both separate and different requirements than Factor 4 (Volume 2), Past Utilization of Small Business.

2) Past performance of the Offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, for all large business Offerors, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (JUL 2013), based on the Offeror’s presentation of facts, details of efforts and successes in complying with the clause(s) on Federal contracts. Offerors must show documentation of reasonable efforts in complying with the clause for a “satisfactory” rating.

3) Offerors who are large, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) Code applicable to this solicitation, shall provide a description of their performance over the past ten (10) calendar years in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, including documentation of their accomplishment on prior contracts with any Federal

Agency. For Large Business: Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) system located at https://www.esrs.gov3. For Large and Small businesses: provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

Contractors using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) with non-DoD agencies may submit a Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) for plan type individual. The SSR is the former SF-295. USACE is using eSRS effective October 2008.

4) Large businesses that have never held a contract incorporating FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR

52.219-9 shall so state. Large Businesses may use company records to document Past Utilization of Small Business.

5) Small business utilization for each of the projects submitted under Factor 1 shall be included in this section. Information to be provided includes:

a. Extent and type of work you subcontracted out.

b. Type of firm subcontracted to (LB, SDVOSB, WOSB, etc.).

c. Company subcontracted to.

d. Subcontracted company’s address.

e. Subcontracted company’s DUNS.

f. Subcontracted company’s NAICS.

g. Amount subcontracted to small business.

h. Details of efforts and successes in complying with the clauses(s) of Federal contracts.

i. Explanation for no prior performance information.

6. VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

GENERAL: Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate electronic file labeled:

"Volume 3 – Pro Forma Requirements."

6.1 VOLUME 3 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE

ITEM SCHEDULE)

Submission Requirements: Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration.

6.1.1 Evaluation Criteria: Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis by the Price Evaluation Board (PEB). Price will not be rated.

The PEB will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Firms are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

6.1.2 If deemed necessary, supplemental price breakdown information may be requested by the government after the initial proposal submission, to be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.1.3 Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the

Government will be performed. The Total Evaluated Price for purposes of tradeoff analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and option CLINS. The trade-off analysis will be conducted and a best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

6.2 VOLUME 3 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

6.2.1 Submission Requirements: Submit the Bid Bond in accordance with the solicitation request for proposals. If the Offeror cannot provide a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR 52.228-1, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered valid for this RFP.

6.2.2 Evaluation Requirements: This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

6.3 VOLUME 3 TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

6.3.1 Submission Requirements: The Firm shall confirm that it understands and that it shall perform the amount of work required to be self-performed, in accordance with the appropriate clause in Section 00 70 00 that applies to the contract performance.

6.3.2 Evaluation Requirements: This item is not rated. In order to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work, the Contractor shall be required to perform a significant part of the contract with its own forces. This public policy is expressed in various Statutes, as well as in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and in the Small Business Administration Code of Federal Regulations. The Firm must confirm that it understands the amount of work performed, based on the status of the firm, and that it will self-perform the required amount of work with its own forces.

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

7.2 EVALUATION

7.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

7.2.2 Firms are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Firms should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer reserves its right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

7.2.3 Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated based on an evaluation of all evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for the purposes of efficiency. Competitive range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal. The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the competitive range.

7.2.4 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those firms in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Firm an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Firm to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

7.2.5 Upon conclusion of discussions, those firms still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

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.

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 criteria, 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.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1 - 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.