Spec Sect 00 22 10 - Selection Procedure and Basis of Award - Revised and Reissued 16Jul26.pdf

[Type here]

SECTION 00 22 10 – SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

BEST VALUE TRADE OFF

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, PHASING AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 3 –ORGANIZATION APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 - SMALL BUSINESS

6.1 TAB A – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

6.2 TAB B – PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

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

7.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

7.2 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

7.3 TAB C – SELF PERFORMED WORKAB

7.4 TAB D – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.5 TAB E – REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY SUB CONTRACTOR

4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

5 – SAMPLE FIRM, UNEQUIVOCAL LETTER OF COMMITMENT

1.0 OVERVIEW

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

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This is a Best Value Trade Off procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All non-price factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within funds available. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the overall best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within funds available) would justify award to that Offeror. The magnitude of construction is between $25,000,000 and $50,000,000.

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

Non-Price factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing And Summary Schedule Factor 3 –Organization Approach Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Plan

The Source Selection Authority (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.

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.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1.1 Who May Submit:

a. Competition will be unrestricted with HubZone Price Evaluation Preference (i.e., open to all businesses regardless of Small Business status). Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

3.1.2 Inquiries about this solicitation:

a. Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation only by e-mail to the Contract Specialist – Mohenda Surage (Mohenda.R.Surage@usace.army.mil) and Contracting Officer – (Nicholas Emanuel Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil).

b. 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 mailto:(Mohenda.R.Surage@usace.army.mil) mailto:Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil

Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiated 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 award is made.

3.1.3 Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials shall be submitted in the following volumes:

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages 1 A Factor 1: Past Performance No Page Limit 1 B Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing and

Summary Schedule

1 C Factor 3: Organization Approach 15

2 A Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan No page limit

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

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

No page limit

3 B Factor 5: Bid Guarantee No page limit

3 C Factor 5: Self-Performed Work No page limit

3 D Factor 5: Required Pre-Award Information No page limit

3 E Factor 5: Representations and Certifications No page limit

In order to evaluate all proposals effectively and equitably, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below.

Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper.

Schedules, drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around.

Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture agreements.

3.1.4 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, past performance, and other information about each joint venture partner will be considered the experience, etc. of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures must also submit the following additional documentation:

3.1.4.b.1 A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

3.1.4.b.2 A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

3.1.4.b.3 The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

3.1.4.b.4 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.

3.1.4.b.5 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.

3.1.4.b.6 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.

3.1.4.b.7 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 titled “Joint Venture” shall be included in Volume I of the proposal.

3.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 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:

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

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

c. Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

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

e. Offerors shall submit a 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.

3.2.2 Where to Submit:

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 EMAIL. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS

(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.

Please send proposals to Contract Specialist Mohenda Surage at Mohenda.R.Surage@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 email. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading in email (total size cannot exceed 5MB). Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

mailto:Mohenda.R.Surage@usace.army.mil mailto:nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil

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 (Personally Identifiable Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

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 received by the Government.

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

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.

3.3 VOLUME 1– MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal, if the Offeror provides a firm, unequivocal Letter of Commitment signed by both parties.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm, unequivocal commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.4 In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

3.3.5 In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience and past performance should be limited to the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

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

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

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, RATINGS AND ELEMENTS

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for the non-price evaluation factors.

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

Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated, unless the range is further reduced for the purposes of efficiency. Competitive Range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the Competitive Range.

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

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered within the Competitive Range, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

LOCATION FACTOR NUMBER DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Volume 1 Tab A Factor 1 Past Performance

Volume 1 Tab B Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule

Non-price Factor 1 is the most important technical factor, followed by non-price Factors 2 and 3 that are equal in importance but less important than Factor 1.

Volume 1 Tab C Factor 3 Organization Approach

VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS

Volume 2 TAB A Factor 4 Small Business Participation Plan

Non-price Factor 4 is the least important non-price factor.

Volume 2 TAB B Factor 4 Past Utilization of Small Business

VOLUME 3 – PRICE

Vol 3 Factor 5 Price All non-price factors

(1-4) when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

5.0 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: The non-price factors consist of examples of Past Performance that meet the relevant scope, complexity, and magnitude described below. This Volume also includes factors for a Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule, and Organization Approach.

DEFINITIONS:

• Deficiency: A material failure of a response or 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.

• Weakness: A flaw in the response or proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

• Strength: Any 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.

• 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. Denoted with an (S).

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

• Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor response or proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear

(e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the response or proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

EVALUATION 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.

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

• 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 except the Past Performance Factor, which will reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the evaluation criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

5.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on relevant projects using the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. Your client should receive form ATTACHMENT 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) 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 the form. 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, 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 points of contact, the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, 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 ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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

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

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

Less than satisfactory performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

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

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

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The SSEB will evaluate 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. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each past performance.

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

RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will be evaluated on the recency and relevancy of the past performance demonstrated in the submitted form, ATTACHMENT 3 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. The Offeror should list their experience of similar project scope, complexity, and magnitude.

Submit between three (3) and four (4) projects. All projects must be complete or substantially complete. Substantially complete is defined as 75% construction complete as of the date of issuance of the solicitation. A minimum of two projects must be completed and turned over to the customer.

All submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that completion should be no more than ten (10) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. The projects should meet the descriptions of scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined below.

If any firm has multi-function firms, project examples should be limited to those performed by the division submitting the offer.

Firm, unequivocal letters of commitment (Signed by both the Subcontractor and Offeror) are required in order for the Government to consider Subcontractor past performance in the proposal evaluation. Only unequivocal letters matching the format shown in Attachment 5 will be acceptable. Other divisions within the Offer’s company may be considered as subcontractors for the submitting division.

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 may be given a higher degree of relevancy. Projects should demonstrate a similar scope, similar complexity, and similar magnitude.

Similar building construction projects are defined as:

a. Scope: Similar scope is defined as projects with the new construction of buildings. Examples include schools, dining facilities, administration buildings, and/or barracks.

b. Complexity: Similar complexity is defined as projects demonstrating successful construction of building structures, kitchen facilities, HVAC, water, sewer, plumbing, electrical systems, fire protection, communication systems, lighting, landscaping, playground areas, paving, grading and drainage.

c. Magnitude: Similar magnitude is defined as projects greater than $15,000,000.

The Government will consider the experience demonstrated by the projects in its evaluation.

Proposals may be highly rated when the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in all or nearly all of the aspects defining relevance and listed below. Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given additional consideration (the following list does not encompass all possible items for which additional consideration may be given):

a. Projects demonstrating experience with DoD building structures.

b. Projects that included grading, drainage and paving.

c. Projects demonstrating experience with on-site lighting, landscaping, play areas.

d. Projects that include kitchen facilities.

e. Projects demonstrating experience working with USACE.

f. Projects demonstrating the prime contractor and anticipated subcontractor(s) have worked together on previous projects.

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

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

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

b. Few or no projects that involve working on DoD projects.

c. Example experiences are from proposed subcontractors in lieu of the Offeror.

d. Few or no projects that include construction of building systems such as mechanical, electrical/communication, and plumbing systems.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

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.

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.

5.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit a summary level schedule for the construction of the Child Development Center Project. The schedule must be task oriented, indicating number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedule pages must be legible on 11x17 sheets of paper. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule shall have the same minimal requirements described herein. The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding. The schedule at a minimum must include the following activities.

i. Kick-Off Meeting

ii. Submission of quality control and safety plans

iii. Procurement of Permitting documentation

iv. Procurement for material and equipment such as switchgear, mechanical systems and other items that have long lead times as to not delay completion

v. Mobilization

vi. Demobilization

vii. Site Clearing/Demo

viii. Rough Grading

ix. Building Foundations

x. Building Erection

xi. Interior Finishes

xii. Finish Grading

xiii. Play Area Construction

xiv. Site Lighting and Landscaping

xv. Site Curbs Gutters and Paving

xvi. Commissioning

xvii. Demobilization

xviii. Physical work completion

xix. Beneficial Occupancy Date

xx. Turn-over of laydown and storage area to Government

xxi. Contract Closeout

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

The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor's CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor- Government turnover inspection.

The schedule must include all anticipated commissioning activities, and clearly indicate accurate logic and succession of commissioning activities. The schedule must include sufficient time to complete all commissioning requirements in accordance with the RFP.

Submit a narrative discussing the project’s critical path. The critical path must be shown on the summary level schedule. Discuss critical path activities that have the greatest risk to project delivery including destructive testing early. Discuss how your schedule mitigates those risks and what measures you will take to ensure the project is delivered on time. Submit narrative discussing submittal procedures and linkage of submittal register to scheduled activities. Include in the submittal narrative a list of materials and equipment, such as mechanical systems and switchgear, that has long lead times, and how these items will be procured without causing a delay in construction completion. In the narrative, discuss how the schedule accounts for management of the submittal process and lead time is reflected in the submittal register to meet activity early start date. Discuss internal procedures for preventing late submittal submission to minimize time growth. Identify any constraints on the schedule presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, permits, etc.).

The narrative and summary schedule must also discuss all preconstruction activities, anticipated durations of the shutdown of utilities/equipment, anticipated closures of roadways and parking.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The SSEB will evaluate the schedule, the narrative, and the phasing plan to assess the offeror’s understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., long lead items, etc.). The SSEB will evaluate the strength of understanding of all elements required in the submission and the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule, narrative, and phasing plan that offer advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration. Elements the Government may consider advantageous include, but are not limited to:

i. Plan to reduce risks and mitigate schedule growth.

ii. Minimum 30 Calendar Day Early Contract Completion Date. A logical and realistic approach to early completion must be demonstrated.

iii. Plan to effectively identify long-lead materials and equipment early on during construction in order to procure and install without causing delays.

iv. Narratives which demonstrate understanding of USACE schedule management tools and techniques

v. Narratives which provide actionable insight to the Government

The proposal may be assigned weaknesses for (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

i. Schedules that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the project schedule timing as described in the contract documents

ii. Schedules that do not include key project tasks

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the schedule, the narrative, and the phasing plan focused on logic, task duration and critical path.

The Government will not award to an Offeror who receives an Unsatisfactory rating for this factor.

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 2

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating

DESCRIPTION

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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

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

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

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

5.3 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION APPROACH

The Organization Approach Factor consists of an organizational chart and narratives.

Factor 3 proposal must include the following:

i. An Organizational Chart(s) showing lines of communication and reporting between the prime and subcontractors; and decision making authority. Also identify who will be the primary POC for communication with USACE.

ii. Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that will be established.

iii. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including construction activities for each major feature. The Offeror should identify any specific firms chosen as key subcontractors for disciplines such as Concrete, Paving, Power/Electrical, Lighting & Controls, Site Work, etc.; or indicate self- performance. In order for a firm other than the Offeror to contribute to the Offeror’s organizational approach, document unequivocal teaming arrangements with firms(s) and key subcontractors.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government places a higher value on an Offeror that provides demonstrates elevated clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work.

Organizational Approach items the Government may consider advantageous include, but are not limited to:

i. Having a dedicated scheduler attend meetings.

ii. Having a dedicated scheduler on-site.

iii. Higher frequency of in-person participation and site visits from the PM.

iv. In-person participation from the PM during site activities related to the concrete mix design development and/or concrete placement.

v. Demonstrating how the change management process will minimize cost and schedule impacts.

RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 3

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating

DESCRIPTION

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of performance…