Amendment_R0001.pdf

W68MD991289813

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 W912DW19R0025

Amendment R0001

(Please see Continuation Page for more details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Oct-2019

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 W912DW19R0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Sep-2019

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, 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

18-Oct-2019

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:

W912DW19R0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

CONTINUATION PAGE

1. This amendment one (0001) provides for the following:

Section 00 22 00, Proposal Submission Requirements Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award (Revised) 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” has been revised.

52.204-8, “Annual Representations and Certifications” has been revised.

2. The proposal submittal time and date of 1:00:00 PM LOCAL TIME, 29 October 2019 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 00 (Revised)

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 1 R0001

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

1. Evaluation Procedures:

The objective of this evaluation is to evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price, construction contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the terms and conditions of the RFP and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall “Best Value Tradeoff” to the Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1.

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the Evaluation Factors. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The Offeror’s technical proposal shall contain a response to the following non-price Factors (Company Experience, Past Performance and Management). Please see below for submission requirements and evaluation method. Your technical proposal (Volume 1) will be due at the specified date indicated in Standard Form 1442.

To clarify, this is a Bifurcated RFP Procurement Process. (Please see the Bifurcated Section within this RFP for more details). At a later date, an Amendment will be issued directly to only those Offerors which submitted the technical proposal. This Amendment (and all later Amendments) will NOT be posted to FBO.gov. This Amendment will provide the price schedule and submittal instructions for Factor 4 and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) and the price proposal. (Volumes 2 and 3)

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3) the Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without discussions. An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical (Volume 1) and factor 4/price (Volumes 2 and 3 at a later date). 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. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.

Code § 1001.

Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

2. Definitions:

Complexity: Complexity: Construction of a facility with sequencing of multiple work features. Examples of multiple work features include civil, mechanical, and electrical.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government’s requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal which raises the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source RFP requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Relevant: “Relevant” means having a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP; that is, featuring

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 2 R0001

work that involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current requirement. Please also note any definitions for relevant within the evaluation criteria.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, it is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or criterion may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Shall: Indicates a mandatory requirement(s). If this requirement is not met in the Offeror’s proposal, it will be considered a deficiency.

Should: Indicates a RFP requirement(s) that are highly recommended to be included in the Offeror’s proposal.

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.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Team: The Offeror’s “team” is the Prime Offeror and any subcontracting firms, taken as a whole.

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

3. Technical Merit Ratings:

Non-Price Evaluation Factors 1 and 3 will be rated using Methodology 2 as outlined in the DoD and Army 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 for Evaluation of Factors

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 solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is un-awardable.

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 3 R0001

TABLE 2: Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating

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.

NOTE: Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of a price analysis, and if necessary, for price realism.

4. Factors to be Evaluated:

Reference Technical Evaluation Factors and Price in Table 3 below regarding relative importance of Factors and Price.

TABLE 3: Technical and Non-Technical Evaluation Factors and Price Factor: Description: Relative Importance:

Factor 1 Company Experience Most Important.

Factor 2 Past Performance Less Important than Factor 1 Factor 3 Management Less Important than Factor 2 Factor 4 Small Business Participation Less Important than Factor 3 Factor 5 Price Schedule Less Important than Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 Combined.

As stated above, all evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price (Factor 5).

Submittal Requirements and Proposal Contents:

The Offeror shall submit their proposal in the following submission format:

TABLE 4: Technical Proposal Due at Indicated Date (Please see SF1442):

Factor Location Description N/A Volume 1, 1st Page Cover Sheet N/A Volume 1, 2nd Page Table of Contents Factor 1 Volume 1, Tab A Company Experience Factor 2 Volume 1, Tab B Past Performance Factor 3 Volume 1, Tab C Management

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 4 R0001

TABLE 5: SB Factor/Sub Plan and Price Proposal - Due at Later Date: See forthcoming Amendment Factor Location Description Factor 4 Volume 2, Tab A Small Business Participation Factor N/A Volume 2, Tab B Subcontracting Plan (If Applicable) N/A Volume 3, 1st Page Cover Sheet N/A Volume 3, 2nd Page Table of Contents N/A Volume 3, Tab 1 Signed SF1442 and Acknowledgment of all Amendments Factor 5 Volume 3, Tab 2 Completely Filled Out, Price Schedule N/A Volume 3, Tab 3 Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) N/A Volume 3, Tab 4 Representation & Certifications N/A Volume 3, Tab 5 Pre-Award Information (Section 00 45 00) N/A Volume 3, Tab 6 Corporate Certificate/Partnership/Joint Venture (JV) N/A Volume 3, Tab 7 JV Agreement (If Applicable)

VOLUME 1 – Technical and Past Performance (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method:

5. FACTOR 1 (Volume 1, Tab A) – Company Experience

5.1 Submission Requirements: (The page limit for this factor is three (3) typewritten pages per project, single-sided)

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three and a maximum of six (3-6) project examples. Use Attachment 1, Offeror or Key Subcontractor Experience Form. Use one form for each project. Only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor, part of a Joint Venture, or projects for which the offeror performed as a Key Subcontractor should be submitted. Offeror should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess whether the projects submitted are recent and relevant to this project. If more than six (6) projects are submitted, only the first six will be evaluated, in the order they are presented in the proposal.

All submitted projects shall be 100% construction complete, accepted by the client and have been completed within six (6) years of the issue date of this RFP. Two (2) of the six (6) projects must have been performed by the Offeror acting as the Prime Contractor. Additional project examples may have been performed by the Offeror acting as a Subcontractor or performed by a Key Subcontractor. However, if submitting a project performed by a Key Subcontractor, Attachment 2, Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor, must also be provided.

Proposals must conform to the following minimum requirements:

a. At least two (2) of the submitted projects shall be construction of a new facility, similar in scope and complexity, on a Military installation with a construction cost of $30M or greater where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

b. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall be construction of a facility with multi-tiered security requirements with a construction cost of $30M or greater where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

c. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall be construction of a facility with a construction cost of $30M or greater that includes Total Building Commissioning / Systems Interoperability Testing of Redundant Electrical and Mechanical Systems where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

5.2 Evaluation Method:

This factor will be evaluated for the quantity and quality of experience demonstrated. The more recent, relevant the prior project experience to this RFP, the higher the rating assigned for the experience during evaluations.

Demonstration of experience in completing recent, relevant projects, on Military Installations at Joint Base Lewis

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 5 R0001

McChord (JBLM) or Yakima Training Center (YTC) may be evaluated more favorably. Relevant projects valued at less than $30M may be considered once the minimum submission requirements have been met.

Combined technical and risk rating will be in accordance with the ratings in Table 1 and Table 2 above.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following:

a. Projects which demonstrate the construction of a new facility, similar in scope and complexity, on a military installation.

b. Projects which demonstrate the construction of a facility with multi-tiered security requirements.

c. Projects which demonstrate the construction of facilities that include Total Building Commissioning/ Systems Interoperability Testing of Redundant Electrical and Mechanical Systems.

For the purpose of Factor 1 the following definitions will apply:

Similar in Scope: A facility which includes the construction of redundant electrical and mechanical systems, emergency power generation systems, Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) telecommunications systems.

Examples include Battalion/Brigade/Operational Headquarters Facilities, and State/Federal Emergency Operations Center.

Multi-tiered Security Facility: A facility that encompasses the overall layout, organization, infrastructure, and construction of a complex physical security system that includes the construction of spaces, ACS and IDS systems, and electronic security systems for security classifications up to Secret / Open Storage.

Total Building Commissioning / Integrated Systems Testing: Total Building Commissioning of a facility to include integrated systems testing of HVAC, Electrical, Fire Protection, Generator and UPS systems (similar to Interoperability Testing for Healthcare Electrical, Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems). This includes verification not only of correct function and priority sequence, but acceptable speed of response, in normal and failure modes of operation, and the restoration to normal operation established by the design.

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 6 R0001

Please submit a Relevant Experience Matrix similar to that shown below in Table 6, clearly identify to which experience area(s) each project example pertains (i.e. Project 1 for the Prime Offeror demonstrating experience with Similar Scope Facilities; Project 5 demonstrating experience of a Key Subcontractor with Multi-Tiered Security ;

etc.):

TABLE 6: Relevant Experience Matrix

Project Title

Facility Similar in

Scope

Multi-Tiered Security Systems

Total Building Commissioning

Prime Contractor

Valued over $30M

Military Installation

Project 1 X X X X X X

Project 2 X X X X X X

Project 3 X X

Project 4 X

Project 5 X

Project 6

6. FACTOR 2 (Volume 1, Tab B) – Past Performance

6.1 Submission Requirements:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the prime Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum RFP requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the scope of work as outlined in the RFP requirements

Each Offeror’s past performance will initially be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the RFP. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed within the past six (6) years from the RFP issue date featuring work which is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to what is required in the RFP. Next, the past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts. If the proposal is from a Joint Venture or Partnership, Past Performance information for each partner will be reviewed.

At a minimum, the Government will review past performance information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), when available.

NOTE: If a CPARS rating is not available for ALL projects submitted under Factor 1, Company Experience, Offerors are strongly urged to submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for those project(s).

However, an Offeror shall should not submit a 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 3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contacts, John Scola, via email at John.P.Scola@usace.army.mil and Caroline Mueller at Caroline.B.Mueller@usace.army.mil prior to the

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 7 R0001

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 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 before the due date of your proposal.

Additional sources of Past Performance information for evaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:

Offeror may submit past performance information using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ) for projects completed within six (6) years submitted under Factor 1, Company Experience.

The Government may obtain past performance information from other established systems such as the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; as well as from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, among others.

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

6.2 Evaluation Method:

a. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance RFP 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 RFP requirements.

b. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment for each offeror.

c. The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period (six (6) years) during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

d. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the solicitation.

e. The third is to assess the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant projects. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the contracts. 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, among others.

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

g. Past performance under Factor 2 shall be evaluated using the four levels of relevancy as stated in Table 7 below, and five levels of confidence as stated in Table 8:

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 8 R0001

TABLE 7: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror, an assessment of the probability an offeror will meet contract requirements should that offeror be awarded a contract.

The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on the extent of relevance/recency of prior contracts, and the quality of prior performance.

TABLE 8: 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.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Factor of past performance. A rating of Neutral Confidence will be assigned, having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the past performance evaluation.

7. FACTOR 3 (Volume 1, Tab C) – Management

7.1 Submission Requirements:

Management Plan: Submit a Project Management Plan, via a detailed narrative, no more than six (6) type written pages, developed specifically for this construction project. As a minimum, the narrative should address/discuss the following:

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 9 R0001

a. Management approach used to construct all project features within the proposed schedule, to include:

schedule development and management, managing multiple concurrent critical tasks on a large project site, commissioning plan for total building start-up, comprehensive training program, and performance warranty support to ensure a well-integrated process for project success.

b. Explanation of the total project team management approach for the construction, commissioning team, to include: partnering, coordination with designer(s) of record, subcontractors, USACE construction team, installation support agencies and Network Enterprise Center representatives.

c. Key Construction Processes. Explanation of how the following construction activities will be managed for thorough and timely execution: Quality Control, submittals, LEED implementation & facility total building commissioning, acceptance, and turnover.

d. Preparation, maintenance and submission of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to include modeling, coordinating and resolving conflicts in the work prior to fabrication and installation of the work, As-Built and Record Drawings, and Record BIM.

e. Contract close-out.

f. Warranty management.

g. Describe how you will manage, supervise and coordinate the subcontractors' work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination.

h. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. The organization chart may be in addition to the six page limit for the management plan. Joint venture Offerors shall show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner.

Clearly delineate on-site from the off-site personnel on the organizational chart. Quality control and safety personnel should be included in the chart.

Schedule. The proposed schedule shall not exceed the duration identified in FAR clause 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution and Completion of Work and FAR clause 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item.

Schedule Submission. Submit a summary level schedule for construction based on award scenario 4 of the Price Schedule (CLINS 0001-0006, 0008, and 0010), i.e., not to exceed 900 calendar days. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately, but should be bound and clearly labeled. Provide a schedule outlining major work features of construction and the critical path items for the award scenario 4 of the price schedule. This schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The schedule should be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after date of notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of choice; however, the schedule shall be graphically represented. The schedule shall indicate sequences proposed to accomplish each work feature and appropriate interdependencies between various work elements. The schedule shall should be as complete, reasonable, and realistic as possible, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to propose a schedule that identifies all major elements of work for this project, meets the Government’s requirements, and is obtainable.

Give attention to the following features:

a. Show the overall construction phase for the facility, for the site work, and for utilities.

b. The schedule should include at least one activity for each definable feature of work as defined in

Specification Section 01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control.

c. Show the critical path items and how they will be accomplished given the climate and weather sensitive work of this project, specifically taking into account the anticipated weather days per month specified in

TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER (01 32 01.00 10).

d. Constraints. Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule. [Note: this requirement is not in reference to ‘constrained’ activities as the term may be used in developing a project management schedule; but instead refers to constraints to project execution that are likely to impact progress should they occur.]

e. Show all As-Built, close-out (01 78 00), O&M (01 78 23), BIM (01 78 25) and COBIE (01 79 00) submittals.

f. Show turnover of the facility. The time to complete the facility and turnover to the Government shall

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 10 R0001

consider the requirements of Specification Section 01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control part 3.8 Completion Inspection.

g. Scheduled durations shall not exceed those specified in FAR clause 52.211-10, “Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.”

h. Schedule shall reflect all work restrictions identified in Specification Section 01 14 00; to include Federal Holiday periods as they impact availability of Government personnel.

i. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use 30 June 2020 Notice to Proceed (NTP) date.

j. Schedule shall be submitted in Gantt chart layout printed 11x17 (folded) in color and shall be submitted on a CD/DVD in .xer and .pdf format.

k. Schedule narrative shall be included (not to exceed two (2) pages) that describes the schedule and explains the Offeror’s approach to the individual activities and overall plan for this project.

7.2 Evaluation Method:

Management Plan: Comprehensive plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work will be considered to meet RFP requirements. Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources, or that do not demonstrate appropriate excess capacity will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements. Plans will be evaluated based on the level of involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror's organizational chart for managing a successful project.

An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements.

Schedule. The Government will evaluate the schedule and schedule narrative to assess if the schedule is reasonable and achievable for Award Scenario 4 of the Price Schedule. The Offeror’s proposed Project Schedule will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses, including the construction plan and strategy. The schedule submittal will also be used to assess the Offeror’s understanding and the capability to execute the project by verifying the Offeror’s understanding of the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement, construction methodology, key milestones, weather, and contract-required schedule constraints and restrictions. A proposed schedule that offers 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.

The following will be evaluated:

a. Phase durations do not exceed that in FAR clause 52.211-10, “Commencement, Prosecution, and

Completion of Work” and 52.217-7, “Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item”, i.e., 900 days for Award Scenario 4.

b. Schedule includes contract-required constraints and restrictions.

c. Schedule methodology is realistic and achievable.

d. Activity durations appear reasonable compared to activity’s magnitude and complexity.

e. Relationships appear reasonable and are in-line with normal construction processes.

8. FACTOR 4 (Volume 2, Tab A – Non-Technical) – Small Business Participation Factor (Do Not Include with Part One Proposal)

The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by small businesses in relation to the total value of the project, as well as the types of work small businesses will be performing and the extent of commitment in using the identified small business firms.

NOTE: Per 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors need not submit any information in connection with this factor and shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor. (Please identify your firm as such in

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 11 R0001

the cover page).

8.1 Submission Requirements:

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

Small Business Participation Plan (See Attachment 4 Below) – Complete and submit the Small Business

Participation Plan (SBPP), to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 25% of the total contract value. (Please see the goals of individual socioeconomic categories in Paragraph 8.2 below).

8.2 Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated on the basis of:

a. The extent to which Small Business (SB) firms are specifically identified in proposals (Please see paragraph 8.4 below);

b. The extent of commitment to SB firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to be perform;

d. Past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and

e. The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposals meets or exceeds the small business participation goals for this acquisition.

Note: The rating method in Table 9 below shall be used in assigning ratings for Small Business Participation Factor.

8.3 Evaluation Method:

TABLE 9: Small Business Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Other than small business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation by U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as well as Offerors’ past performance complying with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Other than small business Offerors will be rated using Table 9 above.

NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

8.4 In determining strengths and weaknesses for this factor, the Government will consider the following:

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 12 R0001

a. The extent of the Offeror’s proposed participation of small businesses in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in BOTH percentages and dollar value.

b. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the mandatory minimum small business goal and the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

1) A mandatory minimum total small business participation goal of 25% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

2) In addition to the mandatory small business goal, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are based on % of TOTAL contract value:

5% - Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% - Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 3% - Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business 3% - Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 3% - Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

c. The extent to which proposed small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name.

d. The extent of commitment to use the identified small business firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments).

e. The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are proposed to perform (for example: work requiring specific certifications, i.e., welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc. to expand competitive pool).

f. The extent of the Offeror’s past compliance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

9. FACTOR 5 (Volume 3) – Price Proposal (Do Not Include with Part One Proposal)

9.1 Price Evaluation:

Award will be made on the basis of the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements, demonstrating high technical capability and low risk, presenting the most advantageous offer to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

This Source Selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition – normally competition establishes price reasonableness and a comparison of proposed prices will satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1).

All offers with separately priced line items or sub-line items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items and/or sub-line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 13 R0001

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

OFFEROR or KEY SUBCONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE FORM

PLEASE USE THIS FORM. USE ONE FORM PER PROJECT

Note: A separate Word version of this document will be accessible on fedbizopps at fbo.gov

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last six (6) years indicating experience with recent and relevant projects.

1. Name of Offeror:

2. Project Title:

3. Contract/Project Number:

4. Project Owner and Location:

5. Total Contract Value: $ _____________________________

(Final value)

6. If Offeror performed as Subcontractor, the $-value of Subcontract: $

7. Construction Phase Start Date (Month/Day/Year):

8. Original Construction Phase Completion Date (Month/Day/Year):

9. Actual Construction Phase Completion Date (Month/Day/Year):

10. Name of Owner/Client POC:

11. Telephone Number of Owner/Client POC:

12. Email Address of Owner/Client POC:

13. General Scope of Construction Project:

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 14 R0001

ATTACHMENT 1 CONTINUED:

14. Describe/demonstrate how the project is relevant to the RFP in the following areas, as stated in the Definitions:

(a) Scope:

(b) Magnitude of Effort:

(c) Complexity:

15. If applicable, explain how the project is relevant to the RFP in the following areas, as defined in Factor 1:

(a) New Facility, Similar in Scope and complexity, on a military installation:

(b) Multi-Tiered Security Facility:

(c) Facility which includes Total Building Commissioning, Systems Interoperability Testing of Redundant

Electrical and Mechanical systems:

16. Describe your role and responsibility during construction of the project (indicate whether your firm performed as a prime or subcontractor and what percentage of work you self-performed and/or type of work you subcontracted out, if applicable):

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 15 R0001

17. Summarize your performance evaluation by Customer/Client, if known:

18. Were you issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause Letter, Terminated for Default and/or Assessed Liquidated

Damages? (If “Yes” provide an explanation):

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 16 R0001

SECTION 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT 2

LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

(USE COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Prime), that (insert name of subcontractor) will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project).

Sincerely, (Authorized Official of Prime)

Date:

(Authorized Official of Subprime)

Date:

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 17 R0001

SECTION 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT 3

THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, or other)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE

OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS

FORM.

W912DW19R0025 00 22 00 - 18 R0001

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contrac…