PH 1 Amend 0001_W912DW20R0032.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Solicitation W912DW20R0032 (Phase 1), Amendment 0001 The purpose of Amendment 0001 is to clarify Section 00 22 16 information. Please remove/replace Section 00 22 16 in it's entirety.

There are no other changes as a result of this amendment.The proposal due date remains unchanged.

Contractor must acknow ledge this amendment w hen submitting their proposal.

End of Summary

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Apr-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 W912DW20R0032

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Apr-2020

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

22-Apr-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:

W912DW20R0032

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Remove and Replace Section 00 22 16 - PHASE ONE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment 0001 W912DW20R0032

SECTION 00 22 16- PHASE ONE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 TAB A-STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 TABB- FACTOR 1 -SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

7.1 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.2 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.3 EVALUATION

7.4 DEFINITIONS

7.5 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

PHASE ONE - SECTION 00 22 16 PHASE ONE ATTACHMENTS

1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN

CAPABILITY

4- PAST PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 This solicitation is for the design and construction of a facility and associated features located at White Bluff Site, Fairchild AFB, WA. The facility must meet Department of Defense (DOD) criteria, Executive Orders and other applicable laws, regulations and industry standards. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as "Offerors") submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list up to five (5) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase 2.

1.2 PHASE 2 shall be issued via amendment. In Phase 2, the successful Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 16. It is the intent of the Government to award off initial offers without discussions unless the Selection Authority (SA) determines that it is necessary, so initial proposals should contain the Offeror's best terms. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency. Penalty for making false statements in the proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S. Code § 1001 .

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the Offeror must have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines, and the requirements specified in Contract Clause 52.236-25, "Requirements for Registration of Designers", must be met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2 Submit the Phase 1 proposal electronically and follow up within 24 hours by mailing a signed hard copy tabbed, three-ring binder, as described in Section 1.10. Please note: PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative mportance

Tab A Factor 1 Specialized Experience 1st (Most Important Factor)

Tab B Factor 2 Past Performance 2nd (Slightly less important than Factor 1)

Note: PHASE 2 Evaluation Factors will be provided via amendment.

4.0 STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1 Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror.

Include the completed proposal data sheet (See attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section). TAB A and TAB B Sections will follow the completed SF1442 and Proposal Data Sheet.

5.0 TAB A- FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) must each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using Construction - Specialized Experience form - (Attachment 2), and Designer - Specialized Experience Form - (Attachment 3) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government's requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to its role on this project. Submit Design Build projects that are 100% constructed and turned over no longer than six (6) years preceding the date that proposals are due. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked with for government, private or commercial customers. The offeror shall select the design firm(s) and indicate its selected Designer of Record firm in the proposal. If projects were design-build, identify them as such. Submit no more than six (6) projects total with emphasis on Military Construction (MILCON) for the facility type or its equivalent or similar commercial or institutional type:

• Facility Equivalent: Corporate facility/Administrative/Headquarters facility

• MILCON: Congressionally-authorized military construction for DoD requirements

5.1.1. Submit project matrix, corresponding to the up to 6 total projects (above), with up to six (6) project examples, each demonstrating relevant construction and design experience. "Relevant" is defined as projects similar to the project in this solicitation in scope, magnitude, and complexity and that have a logical connection to the requirements of this RFP. Three (3) types of experience areas that are considered especially relevant include: 1) Construction of similarly- sized facility by contract value of $10 million or greater; 2) Construction of facility equivalents; and 3) Military Construction (MILCON). Only relevant projects (see above) within the past six (6) years from the date proposals are due shall be submitted.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE MATRIX

PROJECT TITLE

IN

D

IC

A

TE

IF

E

XP

ER

IE

N C

E

IS

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

D

ES

IG

N , O

R B

O

TH

SI

M

IL

A

R

LY

-S

IZ

ED

FA

C

IL

IT

IE

S

B Y

C O

N

TR

A C

T

VA

LU

E

EQ

U

IV

A

LE

N

T

TY

ES

O

F

FA

C

IL

IT

IE

S

IL

IT

A R

Y C

O N

ST

R

U C

TI

O

N

(M

IL

C O

PROJECT A

PROJECT B

Etc …

5.1.1.1. For Construction Experience: In addition to the requirements in 5.1.1., above, only those projects for which the offeror was the Prime Contractor should be submitted. Offerors should explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition, and the projects selected should clearly demonstrate the construction capabilities of the offeror. In addition, the offeror must clearly identify to which, if any, of the three (3) especially relevant experience area(s) each project example pertains (e.g., Project A may qualify and be listed for construction of similarly-sized facility by contract value and military construction, while Project B may qualify and be listed only for construction of similarly sized facility by contract value, etc.).

5.1.1.2. For Design Experience: In addition to the requirements in 5.1.1., above, only those projects for which the Designer was the Designer of Record should be submitted. Offerors should explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition, and the projects selected should clearly demonstrate the design capabilities of the offerer. In addition, the offerer must clearly identify to which, if any, of the three (3) especially relevant experience area(s) each project example pertains (e.g., Project A may qualify and be listed for Design of similarly-sized facility by contract value and Military Construction (MILCON), while Project B may qualify and be listed only for Design of similarly sized facility by contract value, etc.).

5.1.2. Teaming, LEED, & Design-Build Experience: The offeror should describe any previous teaming experience within the proposed organization, if not described in the project list. Describe team members' experience on LEED projects and/or projects with Third Party Sustainable certification, if not included on the project list. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects. The above information is limited to projects that are 100% constructed and turned over within the past six (6) years preceding the date proposals are due.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent that proposals demonstrate recent and relevant experience of the prime contractor and designer of record in design, construction, or design-build in accordance with their role on this project. If the design will be accomplished in- house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of specialized experience will still be evaluated. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. Military Construction (MILCON) project experience will be rated more favorably than project experience not within military installations.

5.2.2. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), including CPARS, reviewing other DOD or Government appraisal systems, or interviewing owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.2.3. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the offerer and its proposed design firm(s) shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive additional credit for Specialized Experience for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project.

5.2.4. The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, and demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

(1) Number, size, type work, complexity, location

(2) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply "pouring the sidewalks" on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

(3) Relevant recent experience constructing: Similarly-sized facility by contract value of $10 million or greater; Construction of equivalent facilities; and Military Construction (MILCON) projects.

5.2.5. The Government may give additional consideration to previous design-build experience, even if the experience is on different type projects. Similarly, the Government may give additional consideration to recent teaming experience among the team members, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. Most consideration will be given to most relevant experience.

5.2.6. Additional consideration may be given if either the constructor or the design firm(s) demonstrate experience in sustainable design.

6.0 TAB B- FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS :

6.1.1. In accordance with FAR 42.1503, past performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for the prime contractor and its Designer of Record firm. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the DUNS number to the division or unit submitting the offer and divisions providing substantial support to the design-build team. The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of other team members besides the prime contractor, and DOR and may evaluate their PPIRS - If no relevant past performance history is available for your DUNS number, you may choose to utilize the attached Customer Satisfaction Survey/ Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) which will be used for evaluation. The Government will only evaluate up to six (6) Customer Satisfaction Surveys/ Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) combined for prime contractor, and the design firm(s). Provide completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations for all projects submitted under Factor 1 if possible. If a CPARS rating is not available for ALL projects submitted under Factor 1, Offerors are strongly urged to submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for those project(s) for which CPARS ratings are not available.

Government databases will be checked and previous customers and/or evaluators may be contacted as references or verification of performance. All performance ratings shall be considered for contracts ongoing or completed within the past six (6) years from the date proposals are due.

6.1.2. All projects submitted on a Customer Satisfaction Survey/Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) must be at 100% complete or completed and turned over within six (6) years preceding the date proposals are due. The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror, or its team members, to submit to the client for projects the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Customer Satisfaction Surveys/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) should be submitted with your proposal.

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact Debbie.A.Knickerbocker@usace.army.mil, via email prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. 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.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. Past performance assesses the degree of relevance and confidence the Government has in an Offeror's ability to supply the products and services that meet a user's needs. This is based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may give greater consideration to PPQs for submitted reference projects from Factor 1 (see paragraph 5.1). There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

6.2.2. The Government will first assess the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor (1) as well as from other sources described above. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2 below:

mailto:Debbie.A.Knickerbocker@usace.army.mil

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

6.2.3. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the degree of success of the D-B team's recent (100% completed and turned over within 6 years within the date proposals are due), relevant experience. See explanation of "100% constructed" and relevancy under the Factor "Specialized Experience". In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall receive one of the ratings in Table 3, below:

I

6.2.4. If any firm has multiple units or divisions, the past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer will be evaluated. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see Attachment 4). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully.

Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity.

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

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments 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 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

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.

7.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

In addition to individual factor ratings, the Government will assign an overall rating for the Phase 1 proposal.

8.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal updates and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information.

8.2 EVALUATION

8.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor. Offerers are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerers should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

8.2.2 The Government reserves the right to allow proposal updates if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

8.2.3 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select up to five

(5) of the most highly qualified offerers to short-list for Phase 2.

8.3 DEFINITIONS

8.3.1. Deficiency

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

8.3.2. Weakness

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

8.3.3. Significant Weakness

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

8.3.4. Strength

Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

8.3.5. Significant Strength

A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

8.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

8.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. Offerors determined to be the most highly qualified from Phase 1, will have the opportunity to participate in Phase 2.

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

8.4.3. Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal", or "Unacceptable" to each factor and subfactor (except for the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

8.4.4. Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

8.4.5. Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

8.4.6. Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

8.4.7. Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

8.4.8. Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

(1) Name of Solicitation:

(2) Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

PHASE ONE -TAB A

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

SECTION 00 2216 -ATTACHMENT 1

DUNS# (used for accessing PPIRS for the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or A-E Contractor Administration Support System (ACASS) Database)

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for the Designer of Record and each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator's E-mail:

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE- CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

SECTION 00 22 16 -ATTACHMENT 2

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last six years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

Type of Facility Represented _

Your Firm's Name

Name of Project

Location of Project

Owner

General Scope of Construction Project

Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

Construction Cost

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

Dates Construction: Began Completed

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known _

Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is "Yes ", attach an Explanation)

Owner's Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

Current Telephone Number of ReferencePOC

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

SECTION 00 22 16 -ATTACHMENT 3

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last six years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Facility Represented _

(b) Your Firm's Name

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project.

(e) Owner

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

Summary of Your Role in Design of this Project, including implementing LEED

Identify Estimated ("E") or Actual ("A") Construction Cost

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted

Dates Design: Began Completed

Dates Construction: Began

Your Performance Evaluation, if known

Completed

Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is "Yes ", attach an Explanation)

Owner's Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

Current Telephone Number of ReferencePOC

ATTACHMENT 4: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

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:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM

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:

2. Work Performed as: D Prime Contractor D Sub Contractor D Joint Venture D Other 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: D Firm Fixed Price D Cost Reimbursement D 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 D High D Med D Routine How is this project relevant to project of submi ss ion? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions , etc.)

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

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

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

(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.

I d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG s M u N

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT Page 19 of21

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

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

2. SCHEDULE/fIMELINESS 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) u

b) Rate the contractor's use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG s M u N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG s M u N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

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

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

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

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

E VG s M u N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG s M u N

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

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)

VG

s

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

Yes

No

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

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

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

VG

s

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG s M u N

7. GENERAL

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

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG s M u N

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

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)