Amendment 0001.pdf

W912DS25R0002

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 Section 00 21 16 Phase I Evaluation factor.

2. Add Attachments 2, 3 and 5.

3. Extend proposal due date to 10 Dec 2024 at 4pm EST.

4.Answ er offerors Responses to of ferors inquiries are provided "for info purposes only" and does not revise solicitation, plans and specif ications

NOTE: Offerors must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by date specif ied in the bid (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods:

In space provided on the SF 1442, by separate letter, or by signing block 15 below . FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENT BY DATE SPECIFIED MY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR BID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATE BID, LATE MODIFICATION OF BID, OR LATE

WITHDRAWAL OF BID (FAR 14.304)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Dec-2024

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 W912DS25R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Nov-2024

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 X is extended, 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 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

03-Dec-2024

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 SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

PROPOSER’S QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY

Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors and/or the Government and that are not readily answered by the proceeding changes will appear below. These questions may have been paraphrased or altered to represent several questions regarding the same subject and/or simply revised to clarify and simplify the question(s). Questions and answers are issued to the Offerors “for information only” and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.

1) Refer 1.a.ii. – ”TAB A – Letter of Commitment, if applicable, shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5 and shall be signed by all parties.”

We have not been able to locate an Attachment 5 – can you please provide.

Response: Attachment 5 provided in this amendment.

2) Refer Forms – Attachment 2. Company Specialized Experience.

The form provided with the RFP has been corrupted (checkboxes in Sections 7 and 8). Can you provide a fillable form?

Response: Attachment 2 provided in this amendment.

3) Refer Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers.

There are several references to Paragraph C.3.c.ii and C.3.c.i.(b). We have not been able to find these paragraphs – please clarify.

Response: Phase 1 Evaluation Factor has been revised. All reference to ”Paragraph C.3.c.ii and C.3.c.i” has been removed.

4) Refer Forms – Attachment 2. Company Specialized Experience.

2.a) “10. Describe the project in accordance with the submittal requirements as defined under Factor 2 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance, paragraph 3.C.i:”.

We have not been able to find paragraph 3.C.i – please clarify.

Response: Phase 1 Evaluation Factor has been revised. It is Factor 1 not Factor 2. This has been correct. Language has been revised to state: “In aacordance to submission requirements below, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Performance Confidence Assessments. All reference to ”Paragraph C.3.c.ii and C.3.c.i” has been removed.

5) “Offerors shall limit each example project submission to two pages, inclusive of the Speciaized Experience Form” and “The narrative shall clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror”.

Is it correctly understood that the narrative should be incorporated into the Company Specialized Experience Form, and that the Form should only be two pages long?

Response: Yes, that is correct. This is referring to attachement 2 – Specialized Experience form.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 06-Dec-2024 04:00 PM to 10-Dec-2024 04:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I EVALUATION FACTOR

PHASE ONE

1. PHASE ONE: VOLUME I – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY – PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Submit the SF 1442, and all amendments completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed Proposal Data Sheet provided as Attachment 1.

i. TAB A – Contractor Team Arrangements, if applicable – If an Offeror submits as a team, include a copy of the teaming agreement in Volume I (A), TAB A of its proposal. Teaming agreements must be signed by all partners and clearly indicate the percentages of the teaming partners, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the partners. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization in Volume I (A), TAB A.

ii. TAB A – Letter of Commitment, if applicable, shall be provided using the format provided as Attachment 5 and shall be signed by all parties.

b. TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE/PAST

PERFORMANCE

i. Submission Requirements

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance in accordance with submission requirements below, Past Performance Relevancy Rating and Performance Confidence Assessment. Please read carefully to ensure all elements are addressed in your submission.

The Past Performance factor is two-fold. One aspect of this factor assesses the level of experience similar to that being contemplated by this contract, what the firm has done in the past;

the second aspect addresses how well the Offeror performed recent, relevant projects from the owner’s/client’s perspective.

The offeror shall submit the following:

(a) Offerors should demonstrate Recent and Relevant design and construction experience on submitted projects by providing the information requested on the Company Specialized Experience form, Attachment 2. Offerors must provide this information in the format shown in Attachment 2.

The Offeror must submit a minimum of one (1) and up to a maximum of five (5) projects to demonstrate design experience and a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) projects to demonstrate construction experience that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity. The Design Experience shall be demonstrated for the proposed Designer of Record that will perform this function in this acquisition. The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror may utilize experience of the proposed construction subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience; however, use of a construction subcontractor may result in a project to be considered less relevant. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.

These agreements or letters of commitment documents shall be submitted in Factor 1.

Recent and relevant are defined as follows:

Recent. For a submitted construction projects to be considered “recent,” construction of the project must at a minimum be seventy-five percent (75%) completed or have been completed no more than ten (10) years as of the date of issuance of this Solicitation.

For a submitted design projects to be considered “recent,” a design shall be 100% completed no more than ten (10) years immediately preceding the issuance of this Solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the recency of a submitted project and may deem a more recently completed project more advantageous than an earlier completed project or a not fully completed project. It is the Offeror’s ultimate responsibility to clearly identify percent complete and date of completion for each project submitted. If the Government is unable to determine the date or percentage completion on a submitted project, the project may be considered not recent.

Relevant. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Specialized Experience/Past Performance record to assess the extent to which it clearly demonstrates experience with projects that are similar to that of this requirement.

If the Government is unable to determine the nature or extent of experience based on a submitted project, the project may be considered not relevant. Offerors may not submit classified information in their proposals.

Projects that demonstrate the highest degree of similarity to the requirements of this RFP will be evaluated more favorably.

Similar in Scope and Complexity:

Offerors are encouraged to select projects for submission that provide examples for each criterion. In order to be considered relevant, an individual project must be a Design (to demonstrate design experience) or construction (to demonstrate construction experience) of projects with an estimated construction cost magnitude of $4 million or more.

Renovations will be considered more relevant than new construction. Preparation of Design- Build RFPs to demonstrate design experience will not be considered relevant.

In addition, a project should satisfy the following criteria:

(i) Design and/or Construction of a new facility or a major renovation, of a residential, commercial facility, i.e. multi story residential complex, dormitory, office building, preferably located in an artic region or permafrost zone. If the project is not located in the arctic region or permafrost zone, it will still be considered similar scope, however less relevant.

If the Offeror is comprised of more than one member via a teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other appropriate instrument, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror as the proposed collective. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the constituent members. In this event, the Offeror should indicate what role(s) the member actually performed on the submitted project and what role is proposed for that member for this project if it is awarded the contract.

A project submitted to demonstrate construction experience is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. A project submitted to demonstrate design experience is defined as a complete, cumulative design effort performed under single task order or contract or related contract actions issued for the same design effort.

For task order and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project and will NOT be considered by the Government;

rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

If the offeror submits a project demonstrating both design and construction experience, the offeror shall CLEARLY IDENTIFY which type of experience the project is being submitted for and provide the appropriate data sheet. If that project is submitted to demonstrate both the design and construction experience, the Offeror shall submit a separate Construction Data sheet and Design Data sheet. In this event, the Offeror should note that it will count as the maximum possible submitted projects for both design and construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for construction and five (5) for design will not be considered. The Offeror shall submit example projects that best demonstrate the Offeror’s experience on recent and relevant projects, as these terms are defined in the submission requirements above.

Offerors may submit projects that involve contracts with private concerns, local or state governments, or the Federal Government in the U.S. or acceptable foreign countries as defined by FAR 25.7.

For each example design and construction project submitted, Offerors shall provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria with Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

The narrative shall clearly describe the scope of work performed by the Offeror, team member, or proposed subcontractor, as applicable, and the relevancy to the proposed role for this project (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

Offerors shall limit each example project submission to two pages, inclusive of the Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 2). Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider any pages in excess of this limitation; only the first two pages will be evaluated. The page limit does not include any documentation submitted in accordance with paragraph C.3.c.i.(b).

Offerors shall describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how each project demonstrates the Offeror’s experience in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria. The

Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information included on the Company Specialized Experience form clearly describes this experience. Bulletized item(s) without further description of work via narrative may be considered lower.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all sources to verify supplied information.

(b) In addition, the Offeror shall provide documentation of performance evaluations for each example projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance. Past Performance addresses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance or how well the Offeror performed recent, relevant projects from the owner's/client’s perspective. If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Offeror shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each of the example projects submitted under Factor 1 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance in order for the Government to obtain those owner’s/client’s observations on the Offeror’s past performance.

The PPQ, along with the instructions for completing the questionnaire, is provided as Attachment 3. If the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable) is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make, but is under no obligation to the Offeror to do so, reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If past performance information is submitted directly by a client/reference, the Offeror must instruct the submitter to include the words “Past Performance Information” and the solicitation number in the subject line of the email. The Government will not be responsible for evaluating email submissions that fail to comply with these requirements. Offerors are encouraged to require their clients/references to maintain proof of delivery of email submissions, but the Offeror shall be solely responsible for ensuring timely delivery of the past performance submissions in accordance with proposal submission requirements defined on the Standard Form 1442.

In addition to the information outlined above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS, using all CAGE/UEI number of team members (Partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. 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.

Offerors (including teaming partner(s), if applicable) are strongly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues within the 10 years of the date of issuance of this Solicitation. For purposes of this Factor “adverse past performance” is defined as past performance information that supports a less than Satisfactory rating on any evaluation pertaining to a submitted project or other project for which a record of a past performance that may be retrieved as described above. Offerors are cautioned to review their past performance record for any instances of adverse past performance.

Offerors must address any projects for which the Offeror (including teaming partner/s, if applicable), was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, or Termination for Default within the 10 years of the date of issuance of this Solicitation.

Explanations shall not exceed four (4) pages in total.

Page Limit: As specified in factor submission requirements above: maximum two (2) pages per example project submitted and four (4) pages for explanation of adverse past performance.

Certificates will not be counted towards the overall page limitations as specified throughout.

ii. Evaluation Approach

The Government will evaluate example projects to assess the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance record demonstrates ability to successfully perform recent and relevant construction and design projects as defined in the Submission Requirements above. This assessment of the Offeror’s relevant past performance record will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of this RFP.

The Government will evaluate only the maximum of five (5) projects for design and five (5) projects for construction submitted, inclusive of any projects submitted demonstrating experience of an Offeror member or proposed subcontractor. Any projects submitted beyond this limit will not be considered. If an Offeror submits a project demonstrating experience for both design and construction, the Government will evaluate the first five (5) projects that are submitted for design and the first five (5) projects submitted for construction, even if this means that the Government would review a single project “twice,” i.e., once for the design experience and once for the construction experience. This may result in the Government not considering all possible projects submitted.

More favorable consideration may be given to those recent and relevant projects that also demonstrate one or more of the following experience aspects:

(a) Projects demonstrating experience working at Pituffik SB and with

USACE.

(b) Projects demonstrating experience in cold weather construction.

(c) Projects demonstrating limited/dictated supply deliveries for construction materials and equipment.

(d) Prime Contractor experience working as a prime contractor.

(e) Projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together.

(f) Projects that demonstrate design-build experience.

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance and the degree of team’s recent and relevant experience as defined above.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance record, including the projects submitted under Factor 2, Specialized Experience/Past Performance, and other projects for performance information that is available to the Government.

For all other matters in the Offeror’s past performance record (e.g., CPARS reports), the Government will review the overall trends in performance.

The Government also will consider how well the Offeror performed as documented in its record of past performance. The Government will consider the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. In addition, the Government will collect and review any record of performance generated by and in the possession of the Government for the projects submitted under Factor 1.

The Government reserves the right to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact Offeror furnished references, or to incorporate personal factual knowledge of circumstances concerning contract performance which may inform the confidence assessment rating. Should the evaluation team collect this type of performance information, it will review the overall quality of the performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the overall rating. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to, CPARS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this solicitation including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work and safety.

The Government will assign a performance confidence rating in accordance with paragraph B.2.

RATING

1. Rating Definitions for Factor 1 – Specialized Experience/Past Performance

a. The Government will first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s Specialized

Experience/Past Performance as defined below.

b. The Government will next rate the relevancy of recent projects submitted in accordance with the definitions of “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant”, and “Not Relevant” as presented below. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating. Projects will be considered for both recency and relevancy. The past performance relevancy rating is as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings for Factor 1

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

c. The Government will next consider how well the Offeror performed on the submitted projects. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predicator of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

d. Specialized Experience/Past Performance will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessments for Factor 1

Rating Definition

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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

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

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

1. Definitions

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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength – An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength – An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance..

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

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness – A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

Clarification – Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Adverse Past Performance – Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPIIS”.

Discussions – Exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

(End of Summary of Changes)