R0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

RFP W912DW18R0009

Amendment R0005

(Please see continuation page for more details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Aug-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912DW18R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Jul-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Aug-2018

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DW18R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text: R0005

1. This amendment five (0005) provides for the following:

Section 00 22 16, Evaluation Factors (Revised) Section 01 74 19, Construction and Demolition Waste Management (No Change – this copy replaces all previous versions in Umbrella Specs and Seed Specs) Section 32 16 13, Concrete Sidewalks and Curbs and Gutters (Revised)

2. The proposal submittal time and date of 1:00:00 PM LOCAL TIME, 14 August 2018 remains the same.

3. The attached revised sections are to be replaced in their entirety. Specifications changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, and double underlining of text for additions or a single dark line in the margin. All portions of the revised sections shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

4. NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors must acknowledge receipt of all amendments including this amendment by number and date on bid.

Encl:

Section 00 22 16 (Revised) Section 01 74 19 (No Change) Section 32 16 13 (Revised)

W912DW18R0009 Page 1 R0005

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION 00 22 16

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARDS

MATOC Multi-Disciplinary Maintenance, Repair, Construction and Incidental Design Work for Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) Its Sub-Installations and Other Customers Supported within the USACE Seattle

District

1. Introduction.

1.1. Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to this Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Contract entitled “MATOC Multi-Disciplinary Maintenance, Repair, Construction and Incidental Design Work for Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM), Washington Its Sub-Installations and Other Customers Supported within the USACE Seattle District.” This RFP establishes seed project requirements and provides procedures, format, and other data to assist Offerors in preparing their proposals.

1.2. A target of five (5) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) type Contracts will be awarded to the offeror(s) submitting a proposal that (a) conforms to this Request for Proposal (RFP), (b) is considered to offer the best value to the Government in terms of the evaluation factors, including price, and (c) is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.3. The IDIQ Contracts to be awarded under this RFP will include a five (5) year Base Period and a two-years Option Period, for a total possible Contract period not-to-exceed seven (7) years. The total capacity of the Base Period plus Option Period shall not exceed $175 million. While the overall capacity of $175 million is not subdivided between Contract periods. Individual Task Orders to be negotiated and awarded under this expected Contract will be firm-fixed price with an anticipated range of $250,000 to $7,000,000 (Please see FAR Clause 52.216-19 within this RFP). The RFP for this requirement is set aside for eligible 8(a) Small Business concerns only. Please see provision 52.204-8 for the NAICS and Small Business Size.

2. Basis of Award.

2.1. Award of the IDIQ Contracts will be made based on the best-value, trade-off source selection process, as outlined in FAR 15.101-1. The Government may award to other than the lowest priced offeror(s) or to other than the highest technically rated offeror(s). The Government will consider trade-offs among price and non-price factors. The non-price factors, when combined, are considered more important than price. The closer the total evaluated non-price ratings are to one another, the greater the importance of the price evaluation in making the best value determination. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the Contract(s) without discussions.

However, if discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals and conduct discussions with those Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals which 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. For these reasons, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

2.1.1. Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

• Factor 1 – Relevant Experience of the Prime Offeror

• Factor 2 – Key Personnel

• Factor 3 – Past Performance of the Prime Offeror

2.1.2. Price Evaluation Factor:

• Factor 4 – Price (includes two Sub-factors, as follows):

- Sub-factor 4a – Proposed Field Management Binding Labor Rate Schedule, Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule and Binding Maximum Profit Rate.

W912DW18R0009 Page 2 R0005

- Sub-factor 4b – Proposed Seed Project Price

2.2. Summary of Order of Importance for Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2; Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. When combined, all non-price evaluation factors are more important than price.

2.3. Rating Methodology for Non-Price Evaluation Factor 1 (Relevant Experience of the Prime Offeror) and Non-Price Evaluation Factor 2 (Key Personnel):

Non-Price Evaluation Factors 1 and 2 will be rated using Methodology 2 as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Methodology 2 is a combined Technical/Risk Rating and includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the ratings listed below in “Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method,” and the risk descriptions listed below in “Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method.”

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Method:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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 RFP, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method:

Risk Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

W912DW18R0009 Page 3 R0005

2.4. Rating Methodology for Non-Price Evaluation Factor 3 (Past Performance of the Prime Offeror):

Past Performance evaluation will be evaluated using Tables 4 – Past Performance Confidence Rating and Table 5 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings found below at paragraph 4.2.4.

2.5. Definition of Key Evaluation Terms (Strength, Weakness, & Deficiency):

During evaluations, technical proposals will receive acknowledgment of any significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies. When applying these terms to an aspect(s) of an Offeror’s proposal, evaluators will use the following definitions:

Table 3 – Definitions:

Term Definition

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during Contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

3. General Submittal Requirements.

3.1. Offerors submitting proposals for this RFP should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/extensive visual and other presentation aids are unnecessary.

The Government is specifically interested in the substance of an Offeror’s response.

3.2. Please refer to paragraph 13 of Section 00 21 16 for number of technical and price volumes to submit with your proposal package. Proposals shall be submitted in two separate volumes: (a) Volume 1 – Non-Price Proposal and (b) Volume 2 - Price Proposal. Each page of each volume shall be presented on standard sized 8 ½ x 11-inch paper (to the maximum extent practicable), use font ‘Times New Roman’ or ‘Arial’ (or like font) and be font size 10 or larger.

Volume 1 shall not exceed a total of 50 pages. Should additional pages be submitted, only the first 40 pages will be evaluated. Double sided pages count as 2 pages. If a page is submitted on larger than 8 ½ x 11-inch paper, one side will be counted as two pages. Past Performance Questionnaires and finalized contract performance assessment reports (CPARS) submitted in relation to the Past Performance Factor 3 is not included in the page count. Each Volume shall be submitted in separate, standard letter-size, loose-leaf binders. Contents of binders shall be tabbed and labeled with a Table of Contents for easy identification. The Table of Contents page, cover letter and tab dividers are not included in the page count. Do not incorporate any material by reference. Material presented as such will not be considered for evaluation.

4. Volume 1 – Non-Price Proposal Submittal Requirements:

4.1. Cover Letter: Submit a cover letter as the first page of this volume. The cover letter shall reflect the following information:

a. RFP number.

b. Name, address, e-mail address, and telephone numbers of the firm signing the SF 1442.

W912DW18R0009 Page 4 R0005

c. Names, titles, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the firm's behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

d. Name, title, and signature of the person(s) authorized to sign the proposal.

e. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the RFP and agreement to furnish any and all items upon which prices are offered at the proposed item prices.

f. A statement indicating compliance with all insurance requirements stated herein and that evidence of such will be provided after Contract award.

g. Final Proposal Revisions: If required to submit a Final Proposal Revision following evaluation of initial proposals, the accompanying cover letter must identify all changes made to the firm's initial proposal.

h. Prime Offeror: If the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), the DUNS and CAGE Code for each firm representing the JV must be included.

4.2. Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

4.2.1. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to aid in the preparation of your proposal:

“Construction Renovation, Repair, Alteration, or Upgrade” is defined as construction to, on, or within an existing building, plant, utility, or other structure. Note that the words “Renovation, Repair, Alteration, or Upgrade” may be used interchangeably within this RFP. Construction where an existing, below-ground structure was demolished and either removed or abandoned in place, and a new below-ground structure was built in its place is considered to be “construction renovation, repair, alteration, or upgrade.”

“New Construction” is defined as construction of a building, plant, utility, or other structure in a location where no other building, plant, utility, or other structure exists. Construction where an existing, above-ground structure was demolished and a new above-ground structure was built in its place is considered “new construction.” Building, structure, or utility expansions, where the work only “ties into” an existing building, structure, or utility is considered “new construction.”

“Magnitude” is defined as a project total dollar value. Note that the words “Magnitude or Relevant Size” may be used interchangeably within this RFP. See definition of Relevant Size.

“Project” is defined as a single, stand-alone, site-specific Contract effort. In the case of an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Contract, work performed on ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER would be considered a project. An IDIQ type Contract, in and of itself, is NOT considered a project. NOTE: FOR RÉSUMÉ PURPOSES ONLY under Factor 2, offerors may choose to include an IDIQ Contract as a “project” to demonstrate experience, without describing every Task Order. HOWEVER, the offeror is responsible for ensuring the Government understands each Key Personnel’s overall experience. The Government will not make assumptions. Accordingly, the Offeror is highly encouraged to provide enough detail for the government to understand that experience, to include specific roles performed over the duration of the IDIQ, types and sizes of projects worked on, and any other pertinent information related to the Evaluation Criteria/Method for Factor 2. The Offeror is strongly urged to expand upon key projects/Task Orders worked on to demonstrate specific experience as it relates to the Evaluation Criteria/Method for Factor 2.

“Relevant Experience” Please refer to item 0001 on page 12 for the definition of relevant project experience which is similar in size, scope and complexity to those that may be ordered under this Contract. Relevant Experience is further defined as follows:

Relevant Size:

W912DW18R0009 Page 5 R0005

For evaluation purposes, a relevant project with a total dollar value that falls close to or within the dollar value range of task orders anticipated to be executed under the resulting Contract ($250K - $7M) is considered relevant, provided the project meets the other relevant criteria for scope and complexity. Projects less than $250K will not be considered relevant. Relevant projects valued between $5M and $7M will be considered a strength.

Relevant Scope and Complexity:

Experience with multi-disciplinary construction activities for renovations, repairs, upgrades, and alterations of real property. Examples include the following: Renovation, repairs, upgrades, or alterations to building or plant structural systems, mechanical systems, HVAC systems, fire suppression systems, fire alarm systems, electrical systems, communication line systems; Renovations, repairs, upgrades, or alterations to infrastructure projects, such as roadways, airfields, underground utilities, overhead utilities, and electrical distribution systems.

4.2.2. Factor 1 – Relevant Experience of the Prime Offeror:

Submittal Requirements:

For this criterion, the Offeror shall submit a minimum of four (4) and up to six (6) projects for the Prime Offeror to demonstrate relevant experience. If more than six projects are submitted, only the first six will be evaluated, starting with the most recently completed and working backwards in time. Each project example shall demonstrate relevant experience to the proposed acquisition, with “relevant experience” as defined above. All projects submitted for this criterion must have been completed (Beneficial Occupancy Date established) within the last six years from the date this solicitation was issued. In addition, offerors should clearly explain how the information provided demonstrates relevant experience to the proposed acquisition. Please refer to Evaluation Method below for more details.

At least one (1) project submittal shall be performed by the Prime Offeror.

For purposes of evaluating the Experience of the Prime Offeror (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 3), the Prime Offeror is defined as the Offeror identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If the Prime Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

Projects performed by contractors other than the Prime Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors may be submitted to demonstrate Prime Offeror’s Experience if the Prime Offeror can demonstrate a formal teaming agreement is in place. The teaming agreement must show the working association with teaming partners will continue through the execution of this contract for past experience by teaming partners to be deemed relevant and be considered for this factor.

Any substitution of teaming partners(s) after contract award will be subject to the approval of the Contracting Officer and must have qualifications and experience equal to or greater than those of the proposed teaming partner(s).

NOTE TO OFFEROR: Projects submitted under this Factor 1 must have been performed by the firm submitting an offer for this solicitation (same CAGE Codes and DUNS numbers). Projects performed by a parent company, sister company, teaming partner, affiliate or business other than the specific firm submitting an offer for this solicitation will not be evaluated.

PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY JOINT VENTURES (J-V): Offerors must include at least one project completed by each of the companies representing the JV agreement. These projects must have been performed by a member of the JV submitting an offer for this solicitation (i.e., same CAGE codes and DUNS numbers). Projects submitted by an entity of the JV must be performed by that entity and not part of another JV agreement between that entity and a different firm other than the other entity proposed in the JV. Projects submitted that were completed by the JV firm count as a project for each firm within the JV agreement, but would only count as one project toward the overall six project maximum for this factor.

W912DW18R0009 Page 6 R0005

Offerors are advised that very little “new construction” will be performed under the resulting Contract. Instead, as much as 95% of the projects executed against this Contract will be for the renovation, repair, or upgrade to existing structures/facilities. Accordingly, for purposes of this evaluation, PROJECTS DEMONSTRATING NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, as defined above, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR EVALUATION.

Offerors are advised to submit RENOVATION projects that demonstrate relevant experience to the proposed acquisition. Any project submitted that contains both Renovation AND New Construction elements must include a detailed explanation of the extent of renovation work, to include how the project meets the definition of “relevant experience”. In these cases, the Government may consider a project to demonstrate relevant experience if the offeror can demonstrate that the majority of work on that project was for renovation; however, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide enough detail for the Government to make that determination.

For each project provided to demonstrate the above experience, provide the following information:

a) Project Title, Location, and Customer

b) Project Type (e.g. Renovation/Repair or Renovation with New Construction)

c) Total Dollar Value of Entire Project

d) Start & Completion Dates (Month/Year)

e) Description of Project - Describe the specific elements of work performed and how this work is relevant to

Task Orders to be awarded as a result of this RFP. For any project submitted that contains any element of new construction, the offeror must include a detailed explanation of the extent of renovation work, to include how the project meets the definition of “relevant experience.”

f) Role of Prime Offeror (Prime or Subcontractor) - If you performed the project as a subcontractor, you must address the elements of work performed, as well as the dollar value and percentage performed of the total project.

g) Awards or recognition received (if applicable).

h) Customer Point of Contact - Name, relationship to project, agency/firm, city, state, and current phone number and email. If you performed as a subcontractor, the Prime Contractor can serve as your ‘Customer.’

Evaluation Method:

Offerors will be evaluated based on the extent of their experience in performing relevant renovation projects, as defined above. Note that these are NOT minimum requirements; however, the more experience demonstrated in each of the following, the higher the rating that may be assigned during evaluations:

a) Experience executing a variety of types of construction renovation/repair projects including work on the following: building or plant structural systems, mechanical systems, HVAC systems, fire suppression systems, fire alarm systems, electrical systems, communication line systems, infrastructure projects, such as roadways, airfields, underground utilities, overhead utilities, electrical distribution systems, and incidental design.

b) Experience managing multiple, concurrent projects.

c) Experience with multiple projects working on a military installation. (Note: VA or other buildings not located within the confinement/borders of a Department of Defense Compound are not considered a ‘military installation’).

d) Experience with projects containing historical building renovations

e) Experience with projects containing Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (ATFP).

f) Experience with projects which include experience in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED), Low Impact Development (LID), Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Energy Policy Act (EPAct). Additional credit will be given to projects with LEED certification.

g) Multiple project experience with incidental design to include design-build projects.

Based on the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s submission in response to this factor, the Offeror will be assigned a rating for this factor based on Table 1 above.

4.2.3. Factor 2 – Key Personnel:

W912DW18R0009 Page 7 R0005

Submittal Requirements:

Provide the names and resume(s) of key construction personnel that will be assigned to this contract in the required format shown at the end of this factor for each of the key personnel listed below. The Offeror should provide a summary of the roles and responsibilities of these individuals for each key construction personnel. The years stated are the minimum requirement. Include a resume for each of the following key personnel:

1. The Project General Manager (the individual or individuals in YOUR COMPANY who will lead all the personnel under the resulting Contract) shall possess either of the following qualifications:

i. A Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering, architecture, or construction management and ten years of experience as a General Project Manager or Project Manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

OR

ii. Fifteen years of experience as a General Project Manager or Project Manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

2. The Project Manager (the individual or individuals in YOUR COMPANY who will lead the effort on individual Task Orders) shall possess either of the following qualifications:

i. A Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering, architecture, or construction management and five years of experience as a Project Manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

ii. Ten years of experience as a Project Manager simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

3. The Corporate Safety Manager (the individual or individuals in YOUR COMPANY responsible for Safety on a Corporate level) shall possess either of the following qualifications:

i. A Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering, architecture, construction management, or construction safety related and five years of experience working as a project safety officer (or in a position with equivalent responsibilities) simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

ii. Ten years of experience working as a project safety officer (or in a position with equivalent responsibilities) simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

4. The On-Site Quality Control (QC) Manager (the individual or individuals in YOUR COMPANY responsible for QC performance under the resulting Contract) shall possess either of the following qualifications:

i. A Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering, architecture, construction management, or construction industry and five years of experience working as a quality control manager (or in a position with equivalent responsibilities) simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

ii. Ten years of experience working as a quality control manager (or in a position with equivalent responsibilities) simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

5. The On-Site Construction Superintendent (the individual or individuals in YOUR COMPANY assigned to Task Orders under the resulting Contract) shall possess either of the following qualifications:

W912DW18R0009 Page 8 R0005

i. A degree or certificate in architecture, engineering, or construction management and four years of experience as a Construction Superintendent.

ii. Ten years construction experience in which at least five years were experience as a Construction Superintendent.

REQUIRED RESUME FORMAT:

a) Name and Title

b) Proposed Duties/Function for this project

c) Affiliation with Offeror and Years Affiliated with Offeror

d) Months/Years of Experience performing duties/functions as proposed for this project

e) Education – School attended, Degree, Certification, Year, and Specialization

f) List Active Registrations (Professional or Technical Licenses/Certifications)

g) Describe Specific Qualifications for this project and how they meet the required qualifications

h) List Projects worked on to include:

1. Project Title and Location

2. Date of project (month/year project began and ended)

3. Name of firm performing the project (and employing this individual)

4. Brief description of project, to include size, scope, and Complexity (be sure to identify relevancy to the work to be ordered under this resultant Contract, if applicable)

5. Duties/Functions/Areas of responsibility (e.g. trade, discipline, features, etc.)

6. Current Point of Contact for the firm performing the project and employing this individual. If unavailable, indicate why.

The Contractor agrees to assign those key persons whose resumes were submitted with their proposal to Task Orders issued under this Contract. No substitutions shall be made except in accordance with this paragraph. All proposed substitutions must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer 30 days in advance of the proposed substitutions and shall include the following information.

All requests for substitutions must provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitutions, a complete resume for the proposed substitute, and any other information requested by the Contracting Officer needed by him/her to approve or disapprove the proposed substitution. ALL PROPOSED SUBSTITUTES

MUST HAVE QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE EQUAL TO OR HIGHER THAN THE QUALIFICATIONS OF

THE PERSON TO BE REPLACED. The Contracting Officer or his authorized representative will evaluate such requests and promptly notify the Contractor of his/her approval or disapproval thereof.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will review the resumes to determine whether or not the proposed individuals meet or exceed the minimum qualifications. Offerors are advised to provide sufficient information for the Government to make this determination. The failure of an Offeror to identify Key Personnel for the above five positions who do not all meet the MINIMUM criteria listed for that position will result in a rating of Unacceptable for this factor. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they can demonstrate key personnel who exceed the minimum requirements through the following:

a. Additional advanced degrees (Masters and above).

b. Additional years of experience. (At least one year above the minimum requirement) demonstrated in the projects provided in resume.

c. Advanced training and/or additional professional certifications.

d. A high degree of experience with renovation/repair projects.

e. Experience in projects that include Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (ATFP) demonstrated in the projects provided in resume.

W912DW18R0009 Page 9 R0005

f. Experience with historical building renovations demonstrated in the projects provided in resume.

g. Experience with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Low Impact Development

(LID), Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Energy Policy Act (EPAct) demonstrated in the projects provided in resume.

h. The Government is specifically interested in Key Personnel that demonstrate relevant experience managing multiple renovation/repair projects at the same time that individually fall within the dollar value range of orders anticipated for execution under the resulting Contract. Accordingly, for Key Personnel that demonstrate this capability, the higher the rating that may be assigned during evaluations.

Offers will also be evaluated on the extent to which they can provide a Project General Manager, Project Managers, and/or on-site Quality Control managers with experience simultaneously managing multiple construction projects.

Offers will also be evaluated on the extent to which they can provide multiple Project Managers and on-site Quality Control exceeding the minimum requirements described in this factor.

Based on the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s submission in response to this factor, the offeror will be assigned a rating for this factor based on Table 1 above.

4.2.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance of the Prime Offeror:

Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for all projects submitted for Factor 1 performed by the Prime Offeror and teaming partners (See Factor 1 for acceptability for projects performed by teaming partners).

The past performance of the Prime may be weighted more heavily than those of the teaming partners.

The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each of the projects submitted for Factor 1.

If a completed interim and/or final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. Offeror shall not submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) when a completed CPARS evaluation is available. If both are submitted, only the CPARS will be evaluated. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal ONLY if a CPARS evaluation is not available.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 1), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offeror should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, John Scola, via email at John.P.Scola@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. The Offeror shall instruct the clients to refer to the RFP number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation to the sender upon receipt. If the Offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

Offeror shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

Offeror may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the Offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s),FAPIIS, telephone interviews with organizations

W912DW18R0009 Page 10 R0005 familiar with the Offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

The offeror may also include performance recognition documents received for any of the projects submitted in Factor 1, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition; however, please note that any documents submitted for this factor, other than the PPQs, will count towards the page limit discussed in paragraph 3.2 above.

1. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the solicitation requirements.

2. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts (Confidence Rating). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements, and other customer expectations on these projects.

3. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the project (Relevancy Rating).

4. The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify Offeror’s past performance information from references and other sources available to the Government.

5. Past performance under Factor 3 shall be evaluated using the five levels of confidence as stated in Table 4, and the four levels of relevancy as stated in Table 5:

TABLE 4. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATING

RATING: DESCRIPTION:

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

W912DW18R0009 Page 11 R0005

TABLE 5. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING: DESCRIPTION:

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

6. If there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

5. Volume 2 – Price Proposal.

5.1. Summary of Price Proposal Format:

Please see paragraph 13 of Section 00 21 16 for the required number of volumes to submit:

a. Standard Form (SF) 1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award (front and back) (WITH ALL AMENDMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGED). The SF 1442 must be signed by an official authorized to bind the organization. Note that the SF 1442, Block 13D, states the minimum number of calendar days after the date offers are due for Government acceptance of the offer. All amendments must be acknowledged by date and number on the SF 1442 BACK, Block 19.

b. Completed Schedule for Field Management Pricing Schedule (Table 1), Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule (Table 2) and Binding Maximum Profit Rate (Table 3) of Section 00 10 00.

c. Completed Pricing Schedule for the Seed Project.

d. Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications and Pre-Award information, fill in all information to include company information, banking information and bonding/surety information of the firm signing the

SF1442.

e. Bid Bond (see Note 1, below).

f. A letter from your federally approved bonding corporate surety certifying your bonding capacity at a minimum of $7M single project and $25M in the aggregate.

g. If applicable, Joint Venture Agreement and Joint Venture Information in accordance with Note 2, below.

Notes:

1. Bid Bonds. In accordance with Section 00 21 00, FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee, a Bid Bond for the Seed Project must accompany your offer in response to this solicitation and shall be in the amount of 20 percent of the proposed price for the Seed Project, or $3,000,000, whichever is less. In accordance with FAR 28.101-3 (a)

(b) (c) Authority of an Attorney-in-Fact for a Bid Bond, any person signing a bid bond as an attorney-in-fact shall include with the bid bond evidence of authority to bind the surety. An original, or a photocopy or facsimile of an original, power of attorney is sufficient evidence of such authority. For purposes of this section, W912DW18R0009 Page 12 R0005 electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signatures, seals and dates on the power of attorney shall be considered original signatures, seals and dates, without regard to the order in which they were affixed.

2. Joint Ventures. No Contract may be awarded to a joint venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint ventures may register by contacting the SAM at http://www.sam.gov.

Cover Letter: In the cover letter of your proposal, provide the complete names, addresses, and phone and fax numbers of all firms in the joint venture.

Signature requirements: SF 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (pages 00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00- 2), Block 20 requires that the name and title of the person authorized to sign the offer for the joint venture be provided.

In addition to the requirements stated above, and to assure a single point of contact for resolution of Contractual matters and payments, submit a certificate signed by each participant in the joint venture that includes the following statement:

“The parties hereto expressly understand and agree as follows:

(a) (Name, title, and company) is the principal representative of the joint venture. As such, all communications regarding the administration of the Contract and the performance of the work there under may be directed to him or her. In the absence of (same name, title, and company), (enter name, title, and company of alternate) is the alternate principal representative of the joint venture.

(b) Direction, approvals, required notices, and all other communications from the Government to the joint venture, including transmittal of payments by the Government, shall be directed to (enter name, title, and company of principal), principal representative of the joint venture.”

The bid bond form, Block “Principal” requires that the name and title of the person authorized to sign for the joint venture be included.

After award of any Task Order, performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate(s) provided shall be in the name of the joint venture.

5.2. Factor 4 – Price:

The price evaluation factor consists of two Sub-factors – Sub-factor 4a and Sub-factor 4b – as outlined below.

5.2.1. Subfactor 4a:

5.2.1.1 Field Management Binding Labor Rate Schedule:

a. The Offeror shall complete Section 00 10 00 Table 1 “Field Management Binding Labor Rate Schedule” in its entirety. The Offeror shall propose the hourly burdened and unburdened rates for each labor discipline for each contract term. Failure to complete Table 1 in its entirety may result in an Offeror being excluded from consideration for award.

b. The labor disciplines identified in Section 00 10 00 Table 1 are Key Personnel from Factor 2.

c. The hourly burdened labor rates proposed by the Offerors shall include direct cost, payroll taxes, insurance, benefits, and any other applicable labor costs (not already included in either the Offeror’s field or home office overhead), but shall exclude profit. Offerors shall provide an example of how the mark-ups are applied to the unburdened labor rates.

W912DW18R0009 Page 13 R0005

d. The capped hourly burdened labor rates proposed in Table 1 will be legally binding and will be the maximum rates that the Offerors shall use for all firm-fixed-price task orders and task order modifications issued during the seven (7) year period of performance of the contract (base and option terms), including the seed project.

e. The Government reserves the right to request information other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offerors in order to assess the reasonableness of the proposed labor rates.

5.2.1.21 Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule:

a. The Offerors shall complete Section 00 10 00 Table 2 “Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule” in its entirety. The Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule proposed in Table 2 will be legally binding and the capped rates provide by the Offeror shall be the maximum rates that the Offerors will use on all task orders and modifications issued during the seven (7) year period of performance of the contract (base and option terms), including the seed project. Depending on an Offeror's accounting structure, the Offeror may have either Home Office Overhead, G&A or both. The intent is to provide Offerors the flexibility in proposing a rate for both if their accounting structure permitted. If an Offeror only has one (e.g. Home Office Overhead) and not the other (e.g. G&A), the Offeror can mark whichever one as “not applicable” in the Binding Cap Rate schedule. The “Other Rate” fields are provided to allow an Offeror to include an Indirect rate which its firms typically applies to work in addition to the rates listed. “Other” rates must be included in Table 2, Binding Capped Indirect Rate Schedule, Section 00 10 00, and the rates used in the Seed project shall be the maximum rate the Offeror will apply to any task order or modification under this contract.

b. The cost pools shall be in accordance with the Offeror’s most recent audited rates, if available.

c. If the Offeror has been audited within a year of the proposal submission date, the Offeror is instructed to provide a copy of the audit, to include, if available, any other rate information received from the Administrative Contracting Officer of the cognizant audit agency. The Offeror will not be required to provide the breakdown of each of their cost pools.

d. If the Offeror does not have a recent audit, the Offeror shall provide detailed information showing cost accounts included in each of their cost pools in order to explain all overhead rates, G&A markups, labor burden (fringes), and any other pools. The composition of the base on which the pool is distributed shall also be shown. An example of a G&A expense rate computation is listed below and may be used as a guide. Note that the list is not inclusive of all allowable or unallowable costs:

Indirect Salaries $100,000 Officers’ Salaries $85,000 Payroll Taxes $9,500 Insurance $14,500 Rent $35,000 Utilities $14,000 Repairs & Maintenance $6,500 Interest Expense -0- * Advertising -0- * Office Supplies $1,500 Personal Property Taxes $2,200 Contributions -0- * Depreciation Office Equipment

$ 8,500

Legal Fees $ 3,500 Bad Debts -0- * State Income Taxes $7,500

TOTAL G&A EXPENSE $287,700

Total Direct Labor $3,000,000

W912DW18R0009 Page 14 R0005

Add Labor Burden @ 35% $1,050,000 Other Direct Costs $3,000,000

TOTAL BASE $7,050,000

Percentage Computation

G&A Expenses $287,700

-------------------------------- = 4.08%

Base $7,050,000

* Examples of unallowable costs in accordance with FAR Part 31. All costs unallowable per FAR Part 31 should be removed from overhead pools before computation of the submitted…