W912DS22R0002.pdf

Project Title: Camp Buckner Phase 2, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY

1. 100% Small Business Set-Aside, Tw o-Phase Design-Build Best Value Tradeoff procurement.

2. NAICS Code: 236220, Size Standard: $39,500,000.

3. Project Magnitude Range: $10,000,000-$25,000,000.

4. This acquisition is Subject to Availability of Funds. Funds are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract aw ard w ill be made until appropriated funds are made available.

5. Submit proposals no later than 2:00PM EST on 14 February 2022 via e-mail to monica.c.chahary@usace.army.mil and nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil. File size is limited to 25MB per email. It is advised to submit e-mail 2 hours in advance to ensure the proposal is submitted timely.

6. POC: Monica Chahary, Contract Specialist. Tel: 917-790-8182, Email: monica.c.chahary@usace.army.mil

NOTE: The Price Schedule w ill be provided at a later date via an amendment and w ill be accepted as part of Phase Tw o proposals. The Bid Bond w ill be required in Phase Tw o, but not in Phase One.

MONICA C CHAHARY 917-790-8182

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

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

NEGOTIATED

14-Jan-2022

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______5 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________400 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________14 Feb 2022 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

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

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

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 16-300

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

212-264-3013FAX:TEL: (917)790-8026 TEL: FAX:

W912DS22R0002 119

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

OFFEROR INQUIRIES

BIDDER/OFFEROR INQUIRIES: Submission of inquiries will open on 12 January 2022.

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 07 Feb 2022 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 proposal, 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: MPCBMT-K9V24R

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 21 00 - Instructions

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION III

SOLICITATION SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE ONE OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION

PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

3.0 PHASE ONE PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

TAB A - FACTOR 1 – RELEVANT SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE

TAB B - FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

TAB C - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

5.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

5.2 EVALUATION

5.3 DEFINITIONS

5.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

PHASE ONE – 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 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

This is the first Phase of a Two-Phase solicitation, in accordance with FAR 36.3, 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 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.

In Phase One of the Two-Phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than five (5) of the Phase One Offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase Two.

In Phase Two, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit

Competition will be amongst small businesses.

2.2 Inquiries about this solicitation

Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries by following the instructions outlined in the “Offeror Inquiries” section via the bidder inquiry process.

Include the solicitation number, and project title with any questions/clarifications. 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 negotiation acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until all awards are made.

2.3 Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

1 A Relevant Specialized Experience 24

1 B Past Performance No Page Limit

1 C Standard Form 1442 and Pro Forma Data Sheet No Page Limit

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper. Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count.

Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture agreements. 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 titles “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 (design and 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. Must contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, DUNS, and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition.”

c. 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.

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

f. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer (Standard Form 1442) for this solicitation including verification of all amendments received. Offer, and Award. Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

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 – Proposals will be submitted in accordance with the solicitation.

3.0 PHASE ONE: PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 Relevant Specialized Experience

Equally as Important as Factor 2

TAB B Factor 2 Past Performance Equally as Important as Factor 1

TAB C Pro Forma Information Standard Form 1442 and Pro Forma Data Sheet

4.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

TAB A – FACTOR 1: RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

To demonstrate recent, relevant specialized experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms – (Attachment 4) to list their Design-Build construction experience of similar scope, complexity and magnitude.

Additionally, the Offeror shall list their designer’s experience in designing projects of similar scope and complexity, which have already been constructed. Design Bid Build projects will be considered.

For the construction contractor experience -submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than three (3) projects that have been completed and turned over or at least 70% 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.

For the design firm on the team – submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than (3) previously designed projects that have been constructed within the last seven (7) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer.

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.

Similar scope is defined as a design and construction/renovation of a similar soldier barracks, training barracks, or FEMA encampments.

Similar complexity is defined as the design and construction/renovation of a complex of buildings that are at least 2,500 square foot, wood beam or metal structure, truss, graduated metal or shingle roof and column frame facility with concrete foundations, latrines, waste water, potable water, and HVAC systems.

Similar magnitude shall be considered projects with a construction cost of $8,000,000 and above. Offerors shall provide the construction cost to each project submitted, for both the design and construction projects submitted for consideration.

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.

Similar scope is defined as a Design and Construction/Renovation of a similar soldier barracks, training barracks, or FEMA encampments.

Similar complexity is defined as the Design and Construction/Renovation of a complex of buildings that are 2,500 square foot, wood beam or metal structure, truss, graduated metal or shingle roof and column frame facility with concrete foundations, latrines, waste water, potable water, and HVAC systems.

Similar magnitude shall be considered projects with a construction cost of $8,000,000 and above.

The Government will consider the experience demonstrated by the projects in its evaluation. 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 experience includes the following, the proposal may be given additional consideration (the following list does not encompass all possible items for which additional consideration may be given):

Projects demonstrating experience working at West Point, NY.

Projects demonstrating experience performing work on federal government projects.

The Offeror acted as a prime contractor in the majority of the example experiences.

The majority of the example experiences are projects performed for the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

The majority of the experiences are projects performed within the last five years.

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

The Offeror has Design-Build experience.

Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given a weakness (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

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

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

Example projects were performed by a Division of the company other than the Division submitting the offer.

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.

RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE RATINGS

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

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

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

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

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

(a) Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

(b) Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

(c) Acceptable: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

(d) Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

(e) Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

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

TAB B – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the Past Performance Questionnaires included in the solicitation. 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.

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.

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

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

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 2

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:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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

(e) 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.

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

Where no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will receive an Unknown Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

TAB C – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PRO FORMA DATA SHEET

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Must contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, DUNS, and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition.”

Must contain the signed, dated Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

5.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

5.1 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.

5.2 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 Phase 1 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 in response to Phase One. The Government will determine the (up to 5) top best qualified firms and ask that they submit a Phase Two proposal.

Phase One successful Offerors and unsuccessful Offerors will be notified upon completion of Phase One evaluations.

5.3 DEFINITIONS

5.3.1 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 un-awardable.

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

5.3.3 Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

5.3.4 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.

5.3.5 Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

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

5.3.7 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).

5.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals 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 rank order the Offerors based on the judgment of the SSEB and present their findings to the Source Selection Authority.

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.

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 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 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

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.

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

FORM 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:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’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 requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E

VG

S

M

U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

Yes

No

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

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk…