Evaluation Factors R2.pdf

1.0 OVERVIEW

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

This Procurement is full and open to all offerors.

2.2 Inquiries About This Solicitation

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

E-MAIL ADDRESS: Michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil

Include the solicitation number and project title with any questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office not later than 7 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

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

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

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. The written portion of the Phase One proposal shall not exceed 30 pages. Any pages beyond page 30, submitted for Factor 1, will not be evaluated. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding mailto:Mohenda.R.Surage@usace.army.mil dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, past performance information and/or Joint Venture agreements. All sheets shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x11 inch or A4 paper. Each page shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch or larger margins on each of the four edges of each page. 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 (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:

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 Submission of Proposal – SAFE Instructions

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall email their proposals using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Michael McCue at michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Michael McCue at michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil no later than two (2) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code two (2) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Michael McCue at michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil and Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil. The E-Mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the E-Mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialist. The Proposer can enter an additional E- Mail address if desired. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the mailto:michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil mailto:nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil mailto:michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil mailto:nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil mailto:michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil mailto:Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A Proposer can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

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 completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

2.5.3 Submission Deadline

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

Due to increased security on packages, your proposals may take longer than anticipated in arriving to New York District's Contracting Office in Room 16-300. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that its proposal arrives by the designated date and time.

2.5.4 Incurring Costs

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

2.5.5 Format Requirements

In All proposals shall contain the volume number and the name, address and telephone number of the Prime and Major Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover. Note that a letter of commitment from the Subcontractor is required in order for the Subcontractor to be considered in the evaluation. The original proposal must be clearly marked as “ORIGINAL” and the original signatures must be in blue ink. Copies of the proposals must also be clearly marked as “COPY x of y (i.e. COPY 1 of 5)”. Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed below.

The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal. Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required below may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range.

Additionally, should the proposal include any terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be "unsatisfactory" and thus ineligible for award.

3.0 PHASE ONE: PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 Relevant Specialized Past Experience

Equally as Important as Factor 2

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

TAB C Pro Forma

Information N/A

4.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

TAB A – FACTOR 1: RELEVANT SPECIALIZED PAST EXPERIENCE

To demonstrate recent, relevant specialized past experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms – (Attachment 2) 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 project will be considered but will rank lower than Design Build project experience.

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 75% construction complete. All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that they should be no more than ten (10) 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 (or at least 75% complete) within the last ten (10) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

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 the design and construction/elevation of residential structures that includes slab-on-grade homes utilizing slab separation construction methods while executing multiple homes elevations simultaneously.

Similar magnitude shall be considered projects with a construction cost of $25,000,000 and above. Offerors shall provide the construction cost to each project submitted, for both the design and construction projects submitted for consideration.

Similar Complexity is defined as the design and construction for the elevation of an existing residential structure utilizing a multi-discipline team consisting of the following disciplines:

Residential construction, Home Elevation, Architectural, Geotechnical, Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Civil.

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 the design and construction of the raising of approximately 70 residential structures.

• Similar Complexity is defined as the design and construction of the lifting of residential structures

(family dwellings) utilizing a multi-discipline team consisting of the following disciplines:

Structural, Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil.

• Similar magnitude shall be considered projects with a construction cost of $25,000,000 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 strengths (the following list does not encompass all possible strengths):

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

• 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 RFP experience.

• The Offeror has raising of residential structure construction experience

• The Offeror has home raising and/or extensive structural design experience

• Projects with magnitudes over $25M.

• The projects are located on Long Island, NY, especially the project area

• The projects show experience working in coastal regions.

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

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

• Example experience where the project amount was below $25M.

• 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.

• Experience examples are not verifiable.

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

(a) Outstanding: Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

(b) Good: Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 unsatisfactory 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. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DoD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE, have been terminated for default or have been issued a negative past performance rating (either interim or final) and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were issued a cure notice or negative rating and what actions their organization have taken or would take to ensure that their performance on this project will not warrant a similar cure notice or negative rating.

Provide responses to the following questions, in the past five (5) years have you:

1. Ever received a cure notice?

2. Had Liquidated Damages (LD’s) assessed?

3. Received show cause notice?

4. Had a non-responsibility determination?

If so, please provide the name of the project, the client, and date of action.

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 effort.

(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.

Past performance relevancy 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.

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 a Neutral Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

TAB C – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PRO FORMA DATA

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.

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.

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.

FORM A1

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

Database)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS 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 Contracting Officer 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 (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION V

SOLICITATION SECTION 00 22 20

PHASE TWO OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 VOLUME I PHASE TWO FACTORS FOR EVALUATION

4.0 VOLUME II PRICE PROPOSAL

5.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.0 BASIS OF AWARD

PHASE TWO – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS:

1 – FORM A4 – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.1 Acquisition

This is the second Phase of a Two- Phase solicitation, in accordance with FAR 36.3, for all work described in this solicitation. Only Offerors who were determined to be among the (up to 5) top qualified firms from Phase One proposal evaluations are invited to submit Phase Two proposals.

The Government will evaluate Phase Two proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is the BVTO, to the Government from both the Phase one and Phase Two proposal evaluations.

1.2 Who May Submit – Phase Two is limited to those determined to be the (up to 5) best qualified firms from the Phase One proposal evaluations.

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

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

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

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

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.

1.4 Page Limit and Size of Printed Materials

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. The written portion of the Phase Two proposal (Volume I - Technical Proposal) shall not exceed 50 pages. A page printed on two sides will be counted as two pages. A page printed on 11X17 shall count as two pages. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics), excluding dividers, cover sheets and letters of commitment, shall be considered a page.

All sheets shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch or 11 x 17 for schedules and or concept plans.

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

1.5 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.

3.0 PHASE-TWO - FACTORS - FOR EVALUATION

VOLUME I PROPOSAL (FACTORS)

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB A FACTOR 1 Relevant Specialized Past Experience Equally as Important as Factor 2, and 5

TAB B FACTOR 2 Past Performance Equally as Important as Factor 1 and 5

TAB C FACTOR 3 Qualifications of the Offerors Team The second least important factor

TAB D FACTOR 4

Technical Approach and Concept Design The most important factor

TAB E FACTOR 5 Phasing and Scheduling Equally important as factor 1 and 2

TAB F FACTOR 6 Small Business Participation Plan The least important factor

TAB G Pro Forma Information N/A

3.1 FACTOR 3 - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR’S TEAM

a) Submittal requirements/criteria:

The Offeror shall provide the following to show his capability, organization structure and qualifications of the team:

Organization Chart:

Provide an Organization Chart showing Key Personnel for the Offeror's Construction and Design Team(s). At a minimum, the organizational chart shall identify the Key Personnel, the contractor and significant subcontractor entities, their responsibilities, structure and lines of authority (structure and lines of authority are intended to show which person reports to which person) . Significant as used here is defined as a subcontract with an aggregate total price greater than $1,00,000.

Furthermore, at a minimum, the following Key Personnel shall be identified by name within the chart:

Contractor’s (Offeror’s) Project Manager;

Construction Project Manager (if different from above);

Design Project Manager (i.e.; Leader for Design);

Construction Quality Control Manager

Design Quality Control Manager, and;

Superintendent (at project location).

The Contractor (Offeror) shall develop his own chart, unique to and specific to their organization, team(s), and this proposal.

Team Member Qualifications (Resume’s):

Individual resumes in the same or similar format found in Attachment Form A4, Key Personnel Resume Form, shall be provided, but may not exceed two (2) pages in length, for each of the below listed positions. Each page shall be single spaced with a minimum 12-point font with margins all around. Margins shall not be less than one inch in width.

i. Offerors must submit resumes for each of the following Key Personnel:

1. Project Manager Overall (1)

2. Project Manager…