Evaluation Factors and Instructions 24SEP2025.pdf

SECTION II. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS (00 21 00 of the Solicitation)

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

It is intended that this Request for Proposal (RFP) will result in a Firm Fixed-Price contract. The Contracting Officer will award this contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced or the highest rated non-price offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not make an award based on a proposal that received a “No Confidence” rating for Factor 1 or an “Unacceptable” rating in Factor 2 .

The Government will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff of the two technical evaluation factors and price. The factors are as follows:

Non-Price factors:

Factor 1 - Specialized Experience/Past Performance Factor 2 - Technical Approach

The relative order of importance of evaluation factors is non-price Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance to each other. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole (Factors 1- 3), the non-price factors (1-2), when combined will be approximately equal to price (Factor 3).

The best value tradeoff decision and the determination for award will be based on Factor 1, Factor 2 and Volume III - Price.

The SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria and basis of award stated in the solicitation. If award is not made on initial offers, the SSA will determine the competitive range and document the decision through approval of the Competitive Range Decision Document

(CRDD).

Upon completion of the evaluation of final proposal revisions submitted by the Offerors in the competitive range, or if award is made on initial offers, the SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. This decision will be documented to include the rationale for any business judgements and trade-offs made or relied on and the benefits associated with additional costs in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

Failure to submit all data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award. Any deviations and/or exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

This RFP does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS: Proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this Request for Proposal (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, each initial proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may 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.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will ensure that the evaluation of all Factors has been conducted in accordance with the Solicitation, approved Source Selection Plan, and all applicable acquisition laws and regulations.

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (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 revisions (if applicable), 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. The SSEB will not compare proposals against each other.

After all proposals are evaluated and rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against one another in order to determine which Offeror represents the best overall value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgement, will determine the Offeror that proposed the best value to the Government.

Failure to submit all data in the format indicated in this Section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation or for subsequent award. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will ensure that the evaluation of all Factors has been conducted in accordance with the Solicitation and all applicable acquisition laws and regulations.

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.

2. Rating Definitions for Factor 2 – Technical Approach

Project Approach /Risk Ratings for Factor 2

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

3. 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).

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Any legally organized Offeror who agrees to follow the conditions of the RFP may submit a proposal.

b. Do not submit any materials not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures, etc.).

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

d. Offers are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of their proposal. Failure to provide sufficient detail may result in an unacceptable rating. Proposals received will be considered proprietary information and shall be clearly marked as such by the Offeror.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Proposals must be submitted electronically as specified herein. Mailed in or hand carried proposals will not be considered. All proposals must be emailed to the Contracting Specialist or Contracting Officer. Please note the total size of all documents submitted cannot be greater than 35MB. Individual emails can be no greater than 20MB. If you are sending multiple emails, the last email must be received prior to the deadline It is Offerors’ responsibility to ensure successful submission.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

a. Electronic Proposal Organization and Format

The offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in details of the solicitation.

The titles and contents of the volumes, as well as the page limitation and number of required copies must be submitted as specified in the solicitation. In the event that the solicitation conflicts with the detailed instructions in the paragraphs that follow, the detailed instructions shall take precedence.

The Offeror shall address the factors and their related elements as provided in the solicitation. Be clear, concise, and include detailed explanations for substantiating the validity of stated assertions. Extraneous, repetitious, or wordy submissions are not desired and could result in lower ratings. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. No models, mockups, or videos will be accepted.

Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. Title the file(s) in the following format:

COMPANY NAME_VOLUME_I_ W912DS25RA015

COMPANY NAME_VOLUME_II_W912DS25RA015

COMPANY NAME_VOLUME_III_ W912DS25RA015

The Offeror's proposal will consist of three volumes, (i.e., Volume I – Factors 1, Volume II – Factor 2 ; Volume III – Factor 3). Volumes and Factors will be bifurcated appropriately. Any questions regarding electronic proposal submission shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions for Bidder Inquiries. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description.)

OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID

WAITING UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO ATTEMPT TO

TRANSMIT THEIR PROPOSALS BECAUSE TECHNICAL ISSUES

WITH UPLOAD MAY RENDER YOUR PROPOSAL TO BE LATE.

b. Receipt of Submissions

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is sent Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please confirm with the Contracting Specialist submissions were received timely. The electronic proposal submittal contents shall conform to the details of the solicitation and subsequent amendments.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted electronically as detailed above.

The offeror will be solely responsible for ensuring that the email and the proposal in its entirety are received timely. The emailed version will then serve as the offeror’s official submission. Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208.

The proposal shall be submitted in an 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch format (except that tables and graphic representations may be submitted on Z-folded 11 inch x 17 inch pages). Pages shall be numbered. Text shall have a minimum eleven (11) point Arial or Times New Roman font. Variation of these fonts such as bold, italics, narrow, heave is also acceptable. Any text that appears to be using font of a lesser size than specified, may lead to information not being considered.

No proposal information may be included by reference. Proposals shall adhere to the allowable number of pages specified under each evaluation factor. If a proposal submission exceeds the page number limits reflected throughout the Solicitation, the Government will not consider the matters submitted within the pages that exceed the limits. Font smaller than size 11 is acceptable in tables and illustrations as long as the items are legible without usage of magnifying glass or similar zoom-in procedures.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus -free and shall run an anti-virus scan before sending. DO NOT INCLUDE PASSWORD

PROTECTED DOCUMENTS. MATTERS OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

MAY BE EMAILED DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

Any information that is changed as a result of discussions, negotiations or proposal revisions shall be of a different color and clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete project name, installation name, solicitation number, and the Offeror’s name in the header and/or footer. Each volume shall have a Table of Contents and use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Z-folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations and will be counted as one page.

The following additional restrictions apply:

i. File Packaging. Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following software products: Adobe Acrobat Pro version 2025 and Microsoft Excel version 2408. The electronic copy (except for Microsoft Excel documents) must be in portable document file (*.pdf) searchable text format. PDF Files shall be submitted in read-only format. If requested, all price breakdown information shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel (*.xlsx) format to aide in the price evaluation.

ii. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner and to permit a complete and accurate evaluation.

iii. All constituent members of the Offeror, if applicable, MUST sign the

SF1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement executed by all team members is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other members. Failure to comply with this requirement WILL eliminate the proposal from further consideration. The proposal must comply with any additional instructions in FAR clause 52.215-1 incorporated into this solicitation.

iv. Any deviation and/or exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

Summary of Proposal Volumes

VOLUME I – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

TAB A

Proposal Data Sheet (Included at Attachment 1, Section 00 22 20)

SF1442 and all attachments, signed Contractor Team Arrangements, e.g., JV Agreement/LLC, Letter of Commitment (if applicable)

N/A

Factor 1

TAB B

Specialized Experience/Past Performance

Factor 1 is of approximately equal importance to Factor 2.

VOLUME II – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Factor Location Description Relative Importance

Factor 2

Technical Approach

Factor 2 is of approximately equal importance to Factor 1.

VOLUME III – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Location Description Relative Importance

SF1442, and all amendments signed

N/A

TAB B

Price (Contract Line Item Schedule and supporting detailed pricing data)

Factor 3 is approximately equal in importance to Factors 1 and 2 when combined.

TAB C Bid Guarantee Not Rated

TAB D

Required Pre-Award Information

Not Rated

3. 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 Paragraph C.3.c.ii. 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 construction experience on submitted projects by providing the information requested on the Company Specialized Experience form, Attachment 2. Offerors should provide this information in the format shown in Attachment 2.

The Offeror should submit a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) projects to best demonstrate construction experience on relevant projects that are similar in magnitude and scope. 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 subcontractor.

These agreements or letters of commitment documents shall be submitted in Volume I.

Recent and relevant are defined as follows:

Recent. For a submitted construction project 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 seven

(7) years before the date of 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 must 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 Magnitude and Scope:

Offerors are encouraged to select projects for submission that provide examples for each criterion. To be considered relevant, an individual project should be construction with an estimated or actual cost of $2 million or more.

Renovations will be considered more relevant than new construction.

In addition, a project should satisfy the following criteria:

(i) Construction which would meet the needs of a new high performance computer server room or similar with raised access flooring, redundant cooling systems, redundant electrical power systems, and dry-pipe fire suppression systems.

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.

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.

Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) 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 herein.

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 project submitted, Offerors shall provide a project narrative to assist the Government in identifying project relevancy as defined in the evaluation criteria.

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 four pages, inclusive of the Specialized Experience Form. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider any pages in excess of this limitation; only the first four pages will be evaluated. The page limit does not include any CPARS, PPQ, teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other similar instrument.

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, with a narrative explanation, any adverse past performance issues within the 10 years before the date of issuance of this Solicitation. For purposes of this Factor “adverse past performance” is defined as termination for cause, termination for default, or 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. Offerors must also address a “yes” answer to any of the following questions which have occurred in the last 3 years

- Ever received a cure notice?

- Had LDs assessed?

- Received show cause notice?

- Had a non-responsibility determination? If so, please provide the name of the project, the client, and date of action.

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

Page Limit: As specified in factor submission requirements above:

maximum four (4) 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 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.

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 Picatinny Arsenal or with USACE.

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

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 construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manuals, training, correcting 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 construction errors, warranty work and safety.

The Government will assign a performance confidence rating.

4. VOLUME II – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

a. TAB A – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Each Offeror shall submit a narrative describing its overall technical approach for delivering this project. The narrative shall address the following areas as part of the overall technical approach:

(a) Project Execution Approach. Based on its understanding of the contract drawings and specifications, the Offeror shall describe overall project execution.

At a minimum, the Offeror shall address the following as part of the narrative:

Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) program.

Unique complexities, challenges, and constraints inherent to this contract.

The quality control (QC) system, addressing plans, procedures, and organization.

System start-up and functional acceptance testing.

General procedures for management and coordination.

The project schedule.

(b) Submit an escalation matrix which identifies key decision makers by name and anticipated decision durations.

(c) Indicate tangible, measurable indicators of contractor performance which the Government should consider as a basis for evaluations in the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS) on-line database.

Page Limits: The Technical Approach narrative shall be limited to ten (10) pages.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Technical Approach demonstrate an overall understanding of project requirements, particularly the aspects defined in criteria (a) through (c). The more in-depth understanding of aspects demonstrated, the more advantageous the Government may deem the proposal.

The Government will assign a Project Approach /Risk Rating.

5. VOLUME III – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION – PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. TAB A – SF 1442 and all Amendments; signed

Submit a signed copy of the SF1442 and each SF 30 for each amendment.

b. TAB B – PRICE (CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

Submit the Contract Line Item (CLIN) Schedule containing proposed line item and total pricing. Offerors must submit pricing for all line items. Offerors are required to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., as appropriate to the contract line items. Offerors shall round all proposed prices to the nearest two decimal places.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. The Government reserves the right to request a price breakdown in support of the pricing provided in the CLIN Schedule to be submitted within two (2) business days following such request. If requested, the Offeror shall send the price breakdown to Contract Specialist, Monica Coniglio, email monica.n.coniglio@usace.army.mil and courtesy copy Contracting Officer, Matt Lubiak, matthew.e.lubiak@usace.army.mil. The Government also reserves the right to request further information during the price analysis, if needed. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

The Price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The Total Evaluated Price price for the base and option will be used for the purposes of the best value trade-off. The Total Evaluated Price consists of the basic requirements and all option items. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation.

In accordance with FAR 15.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

The CLIN Schedule does not provide for separate pricing for indirect costs. The price evaluators will check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

If there is a discrepancy between the unit pricing and the total pricing, the Government will recalculate the total CLIN pricing by 1) rounding the unit price to the two decimal points and multiplying by the corresponding unit; 2) by recalculating the total price by adding the recalculated CLIN totals. This recalculated price will be used in the price analysis.

The total evaluated price will include all unit prices for the base and any options as identified in the CLIN Schedule. Offerors must submit pricing for all line items.

If a zero is proposed as cost of a line item, it should be clearly identified on the CLIN schedule by stating “Zero” as applicable.

c. TAB C – BID GUARANTEE

The Offeror shall submit a Bank Letter of Guarantee in accordance with the Instructions in FAR Clause 52.228-1(c), Bid Guarantee. The Offeror must submit a scanned copy of the bid bond with the proposal.

SPECIAL PROVISION IN RESPONSE TO CORONOVIRUS DISEASE 2019

(COVID19) ON ACCEPTANCE OF BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL

PROTECTIONS Please be advised that in accordance with FAR Deviation 2020- O0016, Class Deviation – Original Documents, Signatures, Seals and Notarizations, Electronic signatures and electronic, mechanically applied or printed dates may be used and shall be considered original signatures and dates, without regard to the order in which they are affixed for all of Far Part 28, as required by the Solicitation.

d. TAB D – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, as required in Section 00 21 00, “Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors”, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed.

Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(b) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three-month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three-year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(c) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

(d) One (1) signed bank reference demonstrating adequate financial resources. If Offeror’s firm has a line of credit – provide information on how many figures Offeror can borrow against the line of credit (i.e.

medium 6 figures – exact line of credit is not required).

(e) The Offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or signed by an authorized officer of the organization. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements, submit the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each company in the Joint Venture and discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies. The Government may also utilize Dun & Bradstreet reports to evaluate the financial capacity of the Offeror.

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer will use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Although required to be submitted with offeror’s price proposal, this information will not be evaluated as part of the price proposal. This information forms the basis of your firm’s Responsibility Determination should your firm be considered for award.

D. DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient detail in their proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it. The Government may evaluate proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors if determined to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d).

E. FORMS

Forms for Offeror’s use, except as noted, in responding to this RFP are provided in the following attachments:

Attachment 1: Proposal Data Sheet Attachment 2: Company Specialized Experience Attachment 3: Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 4: Not Used Attachment 5: Letter of Commitment Sample Attachment 6: CLIN Schedule

ATTACHMENT 1. PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

UEI # (used for accessing the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System

(CPARS)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (CPARS). If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI 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 UEI for each.

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:

ATTACHMENT 2. COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Provide the following information to show examples of recent and relevant projects your company constructed in accordance with the solicitation requirements. Indicate whether the example is to demonstrate design or construction experience

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3

DESIGN #1 DESIGN #2 DESIGN #3

CON #4

DESIGN #4

CON #5

DESIGN #5

1. Experience for: Offeror Joint-Venture Other (Explain)

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

UEI Number:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor

Percent of project work performed:

Type and extent of work you subcontracted out:

If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):

Joint Venture Other (Explain)

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Type of Facility:

Title:

Location:

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for Reference (Name and Company):

Current Telephone Number of Reference POC:

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

6. Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects. Complete Block 8 for Design Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Award Amount: Final Price:

Date Construction Began: Date Construction Completed:

Percent Complete:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (Explain):

If Design-Build, identify the Lead Design Firm:

8. Design Project:

A/E Design Fee: Total Construction Value:

Date Design Began: Date Design Completed:

Percent Complete:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Designer of Record

Engineering Services Full Plans & Specs Other (Explain):

9. Provide a general scope of the project:

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

11. Were you terminated or assessed Liquidated Damages? (If either is “Yes,” attach an explanation.)

12. Other Information:

ATTACHMENT 3. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name:

CAGE Code:

Address:

UEI 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: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMIT DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR.