Amendment R0004.pdf

W68MD991420214

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 W912DW20R0001

Amendment R0004

(Please see Continuation Page for more details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jan-2020

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 W912DW20R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Dec-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, 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

15-Jan-2020

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:

W912DW20R0001

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:

R0004

1. This amendment four (0004) provides for the following:

Section 00 22 00, “Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors for Award. (Revised) Section 31 00 00, “Earthwork.” (Revised) Attachment 31 00 00 – A, “Subsurface Information for the STS Operations Facility at JBLM, WA.” (For

Reference Only)

2. The proposal submittal time and date of 1:00:00 PM LOCAL TIME, 31 January 2020 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 your proposal.

Encl:

Section 00 22 00 (Revised) Section 31 00 00 (Revised) Attachment 31 00 00 – A (For Reference Only)

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 1 R0004

SECTION 00 22 00

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

Award of this Contract will be made to the technically acceptable responsible Offeror submitting the lowest priced offer – Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer (LPTA). This acquisition will result in the award of a firm-fixed price, construction contract.

The technical evaluation of each proposal will be solely on the basis of Technical Evaluation Factors found in this section. The Government will evaluate each proposal on a technically acceptable/unacceptable basis only with respect to the technical evaluation factors (criteria) described herein. Award will be to the Offeror who presents the technically acceptable proposal with the overall total lowest price. It is the intent of the Government to award off initial offers without discussions.

2.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

2.1 Technical Evaluation:

Technical acceptability of your proposal will be based on all Factors receiving an acceptable rating by the Government (Please see the evaluation method of each Factor below of how “acceptability” will be determined) and other requirements of the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated according to the criteria for each Non-Price Evaluation Factor of this section.

Proposals will receive either an acceptable or an unacceptable rating for each of the evaluation factors. Find the description of the Overall LPTA Technical Ratings in Table 1 which is taken from Appendix C of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Table 1: Overall LPTA Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating: Description:

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS:

The evaluation process consists of three parts:

1. Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial review to ensure all required forms and certifications are complete, and a complete proposal is received. The initial review of each of the proposals will be conducted to check for apparent errors, omissions and areas which require clarification. The purpose of this preliminary review session is to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes. This preliminary evaluation will ensure each proposal contains the Volume I (Technical) and Volume II (Price) separately and the correct number of copies.

2. Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Relevant Experience and Past Performance will be evaluated according to the CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors found within this section.

3. Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price will also be verified for unbalancing of line items.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 2 R0004

3.1 Definitions:

Clarification are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is a process used in competitive negotiated contracting where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. See FAR 15.101-2.

Recent - Submitted project(s) completed within the past six years from the RFP issue date.

Source Selection is the process used in competitive, negotiated contracting to select the proposal that offers the best value to the Government.

3.2 Bid Guarantee:

Please see provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee (SEP 1996), in Section 00 21 00.

3.3 Submission Format: (Please refer to Section 00 21 00 for number of required copies)

All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. In Volume I, Technical Proposal, there shall be a tabbed section for each Non-Price Evaluation factor. Volume II, Price Proposal, shall be submitted in a clearly marked envelope.

1. Volume I - Offeror’s Technical Proposal shall include the following sections, in the general format specified below:

Table of Contents for Volume I - (Listing of all sections of the technical proposal) Tab A which contains submittal for Factor A – Relevant Experience of Offeror, Attachment 1.

Tab B which contains submittal for Factor B – Relevant Experience of Team, Attachment 1 & 2.

Tab C which contains submittal for Factor C – Past Performance of the Offeror, Attachment 3.

2. Volume II – Offeror’s Price Proposal shall include the following, in the general format specified below:

Standard Form (SF) 1442 and Price Schedule, Section 00 11 00. (Filled out in its entirety).

Bid Guarantee.

Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications.

Pre-Award Information found at back of Section 00 45 00 (filled out in its entirety).

NOTE: Offeror’s Price Proposal is due AT THE SAME TIME as Technical Proposal.

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

Proposals shall concisely, accurately, and completely provide the information required for each of the following non-price evaluation factors. NOTE: Absence of complete information will be deemed as if no support information was provided for that factor. Proposals which do not meet the minimum requirements of any non-price evaluation factors shall be determined to be UNACCEPTABLE and is not eligible for award consideration.

NO assumptions may be made by the Government. Your proposal must CLEARLY demonstrate the requisite technical experience and qualifications to receive an ACCEPTABLE rating for each of the following criteria:

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 3 R0004

Table 2: Evaluation Factors: Location: Description:

Factor A Volume 1, Tab A Relevant experience of the Offeror Factor B Volume 1, Tab B Relevant Experience of Team Factor C Volume 1, Tab C Past Performance of the Offeror

5.0 FACTOR A (Volume 1, Tab A) – Relevant Experience of the Offeror:

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant experience by the submission of example construction projects which illustrate the experience of the Offeror on projects with the following characteristics: complexity, function, magnitude, and scope as defined in paragraph 5.1.

5.1 Definitions for Factor A:

For the purpose of Factor A, the following definitions will apply:

Complexity Construction of a facility which required sequencing of multiple work features. Examples of multiple work features include multi-year demolition, construction phase planning, civil, mechanical, and electrical.

Function means construction of combined-use building, which include at least two of the following features:

vehicle maintenance, gym or physical training space, storage space, auditorium, multi-person office space and/or meeting space.

Magnitude/Cost means projects equal to or greater than Contract amount of $35,000,000.

Scope means containing at least three of the following elements of work on projects with a physical size of construction at least 75,000 square feet: HVAC, Mechanical, Electrical, site work and/or Storm water.

5.2 Submission Requirements for Factor A:

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant experience by the submission of at least one but not more than four (1-4) project(s), which together, meets all of the following characteristics: complexity, function, magnitude/cost, scope.

Each project submitted must meet the magnitude/cost criteria and must demonstrate at least one other characteristic.

When combined, Offeror’s examples must demonstrate experience for each characteristic.

At least one (1) of the four (4) projects must have been performed by the Offeror acting as the Prime Contractor (or a partner of a JV Prime). The remaining submitted project example(s) may demonstrate performance by the Offeror acting as a Subcontractor or performed as a Key Subcontractor, or member of a JV.

All submitted projects shall have a completion date on or before the issue date of the solicitation for this RFP. All submitted projects shall have been completed within six (6) years of the issue date of this RFP.

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 (JV), 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 project(s) submitted were recent and relevant to this project. If more than four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four will be evaluated, in the order they are presented in the proposal.

Note: If the Offeror is submitting any projects as a partner of a Joint Venture (JV), the DUNS and CAGE Code for each firm representing the JV must be included in the proposal. (See Attachment 1)

5.3 Evaluation Method for Factor A:

This factor will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements of paragraph 5.2 above. If any of the required information is not provided in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be evaluated as “Unacceptable.” The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 4 R0004

the Past Performance Information Retrieval system (PPIRS) which includes the CCASS/ACASS ratings, other DoD or Government appraisal systems. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

The Government’s evaluation rating for Factor A of your proposal will be in accordance with Table 3 below (Offeror does not need to submit Table 3 with their proposal). Ensure all submitted projects meet the required completion date listed above.

Table 3: Factor A - Relevant Experience of Prime Matrix

Acceptable:

The proposal clearly demonstrates how the project examples submitted meet the requirements of paragraph 5.2.

Unacceptable:

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the project examples submitted meet the requirements of paragraph 5.2.

Project Title Magnitude/Cost (Each project must meet this to be evaluated further)

Offeror as Prime Complexity Function Scope

Project 1 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 2 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 3 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 4 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

6.0 FACTOR B (Volume 1, Tab B) – Relevant Experience of Team:

6.1 Definitions for Factor B:

For the purpose of Factor B, the following definition will apply:

Team means the Prime Contractor and/or its key Subcontracting firms for which a letter of commitment exists.

6.2 Submission Requirements for Factor B:

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of one but no more than four (1-4) relevant project examples. Use Attachment 1, Offeror or Key Subcontractor Experience Form. Use one form for each project. The Team 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 four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four will be evaluated, in the order they are presented in the proposal.

All submitted projects shall be completed within six (6) years of the issue date of this RFP. If submitting a project performed by a Key Subcontractor, Attachment 2, Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor, must also be provided.

Additionally, if submitting a project example performed by a Key Subcontractor (as indicated by the signed Letter of Commitment), any substitution of that Subcontractor(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 Subcontractor(s).

A project is considered relevant if it meets at least one of the following four (4) especially relevant construction experience areas:

a) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of facilities implementing Intelligence Community

Directive (ICD) 705 security standards and requirements.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 5 R0004

b) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of Telecommunications Outside Plant (OSP) construction projects with core communications nodes for campus-wide telephone switching and data networking systems.

c) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) telecommunication systems.

d) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction projects on Federal Facilities.

All 4 elements must be demonstrated. However, all four (4) elements do not need to be present in a single project.

Project examples, when evaluated together, must demonstrate experience for all four elements.

6.3 Evaluation Method for Factor B:

This factor will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements of paragraph 6.2 above. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval system (PPIRS) which includes the CCASS/ACASS ratings, other DoD or Government appraisal systems. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

The Government’s evaluation rating for Factor B of your proposal will be in accordance with Table 4 below (Offeror does not need to submit Table 4 with their proposal). Ensure all submitted projects meet the required completion date listed above.

Table 4: Factor B - Relevant Experience of Team Matrix

Acceptable:

Offeror has demonstrated experience in each of the above elements for relevancy as required by paragraph 6.2.

Unacceptable:

Offeror has not demonstrated experience in each of the above elements for relevancy as required by paragraph 6.2.

Project Title

ICD 705

Security

Standards:

Telecommunications Outside Plant (OSP):

NIPRNet and SIPRNet:

Federal Installation:

Project 1 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 2 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 3 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Project 4 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

7.0 FACTOR C (Volume 1, Tab C) – Past Performance:

7.1 Submission Requirements for Factor C:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the 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 be initially evaluated using the projects submitted for Factor A. The past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts.

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.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 6 R0004

NOTE:

If a CPARS rating is not available for ALL projects submitted under Factor A, Relevant experience of the Offerors, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for those project(s). (See Attachment 3 at the back of this section).

Additionally, if the proposal is from a Joint Venture or Partnership, and the Joint Venture or Partnership has no CPARS ratings, at least one partner all partners (other than the member represented by the project example(s) submitted in Factor A) to the Joint Venture or Partnership must submit a project example which has a CPARS rating, or submit a PPQ for that project. The selected project example must meet the submission requirements of the Magnitude/Cost, completed within six years of the issue date of the RFP and must demonstrate one other characteristics as defined in paragraph 5.1.

An Offeror shall 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 Susan F. Newby at Susan.F.Newby@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 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.

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.

7.2 Evaluation Method for Factor C:

The Government’s evaluation rating for Factor C of your proposal will be in accordance with Table 5 below:

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror’s past performance may not be evaluated as favorable or unfavorable. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

a

8.0 PRICE:

Price Evaluation:

The prices for the base and optional items will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The prices for the base and optional items will also be checked for unbalancing of line items.

Table 5: Factor C – Past Performance of Offeror’s Evaluation Rating

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See Note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 7 R0004

9.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS:

The representations and certifications apply to this RFP. The Offeror submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall fill in the appropriate information and/or check the appropriate boxes for each provision listed in the System for Awards Management (SAM) and complete the Pre-Award Information which can be found in Section 00 45 00.

This information shall be submitted with the Offeror’s Price Proposal.

Contractors are required to be registered in SAM for awards resulting from RFPs.

LACK OF REGISTRATION IN THE SAM DATABASE WILL MAKE AN OFFER INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

The web site may be accessed at www.sam.gov.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 8 R0004

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

OFFEROR or KEY SUBCONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE FORM

PLEASE USE THIS FORM PER SUBMITTED PROJECT

Factor A – Relevant Experience of Offeror Factor B – Relevant Experience of Team

Note: A separate Word version of this document will be accessible on beta.sam.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 submitting project performed by a JV, provide the DUNS number and Cage Code for each member:

7. Offeror acting as Subcontractor or performed as Key Subcontractor (Yes or No)

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

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

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

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

12. Name of Owner/Client POC:

13. Telephone Number of Owner/Client POC:

14. Email Address of Owner/Client POC:

15. General Scope of Construction Project:

ATTACHMENT 1 CONTINUED:

16. Describe/demonstrate how the project is relevant to the RFP in the following areas, as stated in the definitions for paragraph 5.1 (Factor A):

(a) Complexity:

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 9 R0004

(b) Function:

(c) Magnitude/Cost:

(d) Scope:

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

(a) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of facilities implementing Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 security standards requirements:

(b) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of Telecommunications Outside Plant (OSP):

(c) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction of Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) telecommunication systems.

(d) Evidence of demonstrated experience with construction projects on Federal Installation.

18. 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) or, if this work was performed by a Key Subcontractor (Submit Attachment 2):

19. Summarize the performance evaluation by Customer/Client, if known:

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 10 R0004

20. Were you issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause Letter, Terminated for Default and/or Assessed Liquidated Damages? (If “Yes” provide an explanation):

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 11 R0004

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:

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 12 R0004

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.

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 13 R0004

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.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________

Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 14 R0004

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the Contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the Contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by Contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 15 R0004

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the Contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the Contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes:

following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies).

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this Contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

W912DW20R0001 00 22 00 – 16 R0004

ATTACHMENT 3 - RETURN INFORMATION:

It is preferred that your questionnaire be returned to the Offeror. However, you may also send your completed questionnaire directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the following address by Regular Mail:

USACE, Seattle District ATTN: CENWS-CTA, Mr. John Scola P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755

Or by Overnight Mail/FEDEX:

USACE, Seattle District ATTN: CENWS-CTA, Mr. John Scola 4735 E. Marginal Way S, Bldg. 1202 Seattle, WA 98134-2385

The questionnaires can also be emailed to both john.p.scola@usace.army.mil and susan.f.newby@usace.army.mil.

End of Section 00 22 00

JBLM 22nd STS Ops Facility 19004 Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA W912DW20R0001

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

SECTION 31 00 00

EARTHWORK

08/08

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 REFERENCES

1.2 DEFINITIONS

1.2.1 Satisfactory Materials

1.2.2 Unsatisfactory Materials

1.2.3 Cohesionless and Cohesive Materials

1.2.4 Imported Structural Fill

1.2.5 Degree of Compaction

1.2.6 Topsoil

1.2.7 Hard/Unyielding Materials

1.2.8 Rock

1.2.9 Unstable Material

1.2.10 Select Granular Material

1.2.10.1 General Requirements

1.2.11 Initial Backfill Material

1.2.12 Expansive Soils

1.3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

1.3.1 Classification of Excavation

1.3.2 Blasting

1.3.3 Dewatering Work Plan

1.4 SUBMITTALS

PART 2 PRODUCTS

2.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-SITE SOILS

2.2 BURIED WARNING AND IDENTIFICATION TAPE

2.2.1 Warning Tape for Metallic Piping

2.2.2 Detectable Warning Tape for Non-Metallic Piping

2.3 DETECTION WIRE FOR NON-METALLIC PIPING

2.4 MATERIAL FOR RIP-RAP

2.4.1 Bedding Material

2.4.2 Grout

2.4.3 Rock

2.5 CAPILLARY WATER BARRIER

2.6 PIPE CASING

2.6.1 Casing Pipe

2.6.2 Wood Supports

PART 3 EXECUTION

3.1 STRIPPING OF TOPSOIL

3.2 GENERAL EXCAVATION

3.2.1 Ditches, Gutters, and Channel Changes

3.2.2 Drainage Structures

3.2.3 Drainage

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 1

3.2.4 Dewatering

3.2.5 Trench Excavation Requirements

3.2.5.1 Bottom Preparation

3.2.5.2 Removal of Unyielding Material

3.2.5.3 Removal of Unstable Material

3.2.5.4 Excavation for Appurtenances

3.2.5.5 Jacking, Boring, and Tunneling

3.2.6 Underground Utilities

3.2.7 Structural Excavation

3.3 SELECTION OF BORROW MATERIAL

3.4 OPENING AND DRAINAGE OF EXCAVATION AND BORROW PITS

3.5 SHORING

3.5.1 General Requirements

3.5.2 Geotechnical Engineer

3.6 GRADING AREAS

3.7 FINAL GRADE OF SURFACES TO SUPPORT CONCRETE

3.8 GROUND SURFACE PREPARATION

3.8.1 General Requirements

3.8.2 Frozen Material

3.9 UTILIZATION OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS

3.10 BURIED TAPE AND DETECTION WIRE

3.10.1 Buried Warning and Identification Tape

3.10.2 Buried Detection Wire

3.11 BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION

3.11.1 Trench Backfill

3.11.1.1 Replacement of Unyielding Material

3.11.1.2 Replacement of Unstable Material

3.11.1.3 Bedding and Initial Backfill

3.11.1.3.1 Class I

3.11.1.3.2 Class II

3.11.1.3.3 Sand

3.11.1.3.4 Gravel and Crushed Stone

3.11.1.4 Final Backfill

3.11.1.4.1 Roadways

3.11.1.4.2 Sidewalks, Turfed or Seeded Areas and Miscellaneous

Areas

3.11.2 Backfill for Appurtenances

3.11.3 Backfill for Retaining Walls with Weep Holes

3.12 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

3.12.1 Gas Distribution

3.12.2 Water Lines

3.12.3 Heat Distribution System

3.12.4 Electrical Distribution System

3.12.5 Pipeline Casing

3.12.5.1 Bore Holes

3.12.5.2 Cleaning

3.12.5.3 End Seals

3.12.6 Rip-Rap Construction

3.12.6.1 Bedding Placement

3.12.6.2 Stone Placement

3.13 EMBANKMENTS

3.13.1 Earth Embankments

3.14 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

3.14.1 Construction

3.14.2 Compaction

3.14.2.1 Subgrade for Pavements

3.14.2.2 Subgrade for Shoulders

3.15 SHOULDER CONSTRUCTION

3.16 STRUCTURAL FILL

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 2

3.17 FINISHING

3.17.1 Subgrade and Embankments

3.17.2 Capillary Water Barrier

3.17.3 Grading Around Structures

3.18 PLACING TOPSOIL

3.19 TESTING

3.19.1 Fill and Backfill Material Gradation

3.19.2 In-Place Densities

3.19.3 Check Tests on In-Place Densities

3.19.4 Moisture Contents

3.19.5 Optimum Moisture and Laboratory Maximum Density

3.19.6 Tolerance Tests for Subgrades

3.19.7 Displacement of Sewers

3.20 DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS MATERIAL

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 3

SECTION 31 00 00

EARTHWORK

08/08

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 REFERENCES

A geotechnical report for the site is included after this section as Attachment 31 00 00-A. The document is made available For Reference Only.

The publications listed below form a part of this Specification to the extent referenced. The publications are referred to within the text by the basic designation only.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

(AASHTO)

AASHTO T 180 (2017) Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop

AASHTO T 224 (2010) Standard Method of Test for Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test

AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION (AWWA)

AWWA C600 (2017) Installation of Ductile-Iron Mains and Their Appurtenances

AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY (AWS)

AWS D1.1/D1.1M (2015; Errata 1 2015; Errata 2 2016) Structural Welding Code - Steel

AMERICAN WOOD PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (AWPA)

AWPA P5 (2015) Standard for Waterborne Preservatives

ASTM INTERNATIONAL (ASTM)

ASTM A139/A139M (2016) Standard Specification for Electric-Fusion (ARC)-Welded Steel Pipe (NPS 4 and over)

ASTM A252 (2010) Standard Specification for Welded and Seamless Steel Pipe Piles

ASTM C136/C136M (2014) Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates

ASTM D1140 (2017) Standard Test Methods for

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 4 R0004

G3ENDRDN

Rectangle

Determining the Amount of Material Finer than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Soils by Washing

ASTM D1556/D1556M (2015; E 2016) Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by Sand-Cone Method

ASTM D1557 (2012; E 2015) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3) (2700 kN-m/m3)

ASTM D2434 (1968; R 2006) Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)

ASTM D2487 (2017) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)

ASTM D4318 (2017; E 2018) Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

ASTM D6938 (2017a) Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth)

ASTM D422 (1963; R 2007; E 2014; E 2014)

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D698 (2012; E 2014; E 2015) Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/cu. ft.

(600 kN-m/cu. m.))

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

EPA 600/4-79/020 (1983) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes

EPA SW-846.3-3 (1999, Third Edition, Update III-A) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:

Physical/Chemical Methods

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT)

M41-10 (2020) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction

1.2 DEFINITIONS

1.2.1 Satisfactory Materials

Satisfactory materials comprise any materials classified by ASTM D2487 as GW, GP, GM, GP-GM, GW-GM, GC, GP-GC, GM-GC, SW, SP. Satisfactory materials for grading comprise stones less than 8 inches, except for fill

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 5 material for pavements which comprise stones less than 3 inches in any dimension.

1.2.2 Unsatisfactory Materials

Materials which do not comply with the requirements for satisfactory materials are unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory materials also include man-made fills; trash; refuse; backfills from previous construction; and material classified as satisfactory which contains root and other organic matter or frozen material. Notify the Contracting Officer when encountering any contaminated materials.

1.2.3 Cohesionless and Cohesive Materials

Cohesionless materials include materials classified in ASTM D2487 as GW, GP, SW, and SP. Cohesive materials include materials classified as GC, SC, ML, CL, MH, and CH. Materials classified as GM and SM will be identified as cohesionless only when the fines are non-plastic. Perform testing, required for classifying materials, in accordance with ASTM D4318, ASTM C136/C136M, ASTM D422, and ASTM D1140.

1.2.4 Imported Structural Fill

Well-graded mixture of sand and gravel, free of organics and construction debris or other deleterious material. Imported structural fill material shall contain no more than 20 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction), the fines shall be non-plastic, and the moisture content of the soil shall be within two percent of its optimum. All imported structural fill shall have a maximum particle size of three inches.

During wet weather or in wet conditions where control of soil moisture is difficult, structural fill material shall consist of clean, granular soil, of which not more than five percent by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve based on wet sieving the fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The fines should be non-plastic. Steilacoom Gravel is suitable for use as structural fill during wet weather, provided all organic material is removed prior to use.

1.2.5 Degree of Compaction

Degree of compaction required, except as noted in the second sentence, is expressed as a percentage of the maximum density obtained by the test procedure presented in ASTM D1557 abbreviated as a percent of laboratory maximum density. Since ASTM D1557 applies only to soils that have 30 percent or less by weight of their particles retained on the 3/4 inch sieve, express the degree of compaction for material having more than 30 percent by weight of their particles retained on the 3/4 inch sieve as a percentage of the maximum density in accordance with AASHTO T 180 and corrected with AASHTO T 224 . To maintain the same percentage of coarse material, use the "remove and replace" procedure as described in Note 8 of Paragraph 7.2 in AASHTO T 180 .

1.2.6 Topsoil

Material suitable for topsoils obtained from offsite areas is defined as:

Natural, friable soil representative of productive, well-drained soils in the area, free of subsoil, stumps, rocks larger than one inch diameter, brush, weeds, toxic substances, and other material detrimental to plant

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 6 growth. Amend topsoil pH range to obtain a pH of 5.5 to 7.

1.2.7 Hard/Unyielding Materials

Hard/Unyielding materials comprise weathered rock, dense consolidated deposits, or conglomerate materials which are not included in the definition of "rock" with stones greater than three inches in any dimension or as defined by the pipe manufacturer, whichever is smaller.

These materials usually require the use of heavy excavation equipment, ripper teeth, or jack hammers for removal.

1.2.8 Rock

Solid homogeneous interlocking crystalline material with firmly cemented, laminated, or foliated masses or conglomerate deposits, neither of which can be removed without systematic drilling and blasting, drilling and the use of expansion jacks or feather wedges, or the use of backhoe-mounted pneumatic hole punchers or rock breakers; also large boulders, buried masonry, or concrete other than pavement exceeding 1/2 cubic yard in volume. Removal of hard material will not be considered rock excavation because of intermittent drilling and blasting that is performed merely to increase production.

1.2.9 Unstable Material

Unstable materials are too wet to properly support the utility pipe, conduit, or appurtenant structure.

1.2.10 Select Granular Material

1.2.10.1 General Requirements

Select granular material consist of materials classified as GW, GP, SW, or SP by ASTM D2487 where indicated. The liquid limit of such material must not exceed 35 percent when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318. The plasticity index must not be greater than 12 percent when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318, and not more than 20 percent by weight may be finer than No. 200 sieve when tested in accordance with ASTM D1140.

Provide a minimum coefficient of permeability of 0.002 feet per minute when tested in accordance with ASTM D2434.

1.2.11 Initial Backfill Material

Initial backfill consists of select granular material or satisfactory materials free from rocks two inches or larger in any dimension or free from rocks of such size as recommended by the pipe manufacturer, whichever is smaller. When the pipe is coated or wrapped for corrosion protection, free the initial backfill material of stones larger than two inches in any dimension or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer, whichever is smaller.

1.2.12 Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are defined as soils that have a plasticity index equal to or greater than 30 when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318.

1.3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Subsurface soil boring logs are appended to the "Special Contract Requirements". The subsoil investigation report and samples of materials

SECTION 31 00 00 Page 7 taken from subsurface investigations may be examined at JBLM - Department of Public Works. These data represent the best subsurface information available; however, variations may exist in the subsurface between boring locations.

1.3.1 Classification of Excavation

No consideration will be given to the nature of the materials, and all excavation will be designated as unclassified excavation.

1.3.2 Blasting

Blasting will not be permitted.

1.3.3 Dewatering Work Plan

Submit procedures for accomplishing dewatering work.

1.4 SUBMITTALS

Gov…