Amendment R0003_5-11-2021.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

RFP W912DW21R0018

Amendment R0003

(Please see Continuation Page for more details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-May-2021

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 W912DW21R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Apr-2021

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 X 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

11-May-2021

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:

W912DW21R0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text: CONTINUATION PAGE R0003

This amendment three (0003) provides for the following:

1. Sections 00 21 16 and 00 22 16 were revised.

2. The proposal due date/time for Phase 1 is extended to 1:00 PM (PST) on Tuesday, 18 May 2021.

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 their proposal.

W912DW21R0018

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 17-May-2021 01:00 PM to 18-May-2021 01:00 PM.

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 1 R0003

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

3. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

4. SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

5. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

6. COPIES OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

7. BIDDER INQUIRY (PROJNET)

8. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

9. SITE VISIT

10. ACCURACY IN PROPOSAL

11. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

12. PROPOSAL FORMAT

13. JOINT VENTURE AND TEAMING ARRANGEMENT PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

14. MISTAKE IN PROPOSAL

15. POINT OF CONTACT (POC):

16. RFP PROVISIONS

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 2 R0003

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

This Request for Proposal (RFP) will be set-aside 100% for small business concerns under the NAICS 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.

a. Selection Procedure for Phase 1:

In Phase 1 of the 2 Phase selection process, the Offerors will submit capability/past performance proposal which demonstrate their ability to successfully execute task orders under a MATOC resulting from this RFP. The Government will evaluate the submittals in Phase 1 and invite up to a maximum of eight (8) most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

The following technical factors will be evaluated in Phase 1:

Evaluation Factor 1: Design and Construction Experience.

Evaluation Factor 2: Past Performance.

Note: There is no price proposal for Phase 1.

b. Invitation to Phase 2:

In Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to selected Offerors from Phase 1, inviting them to submit Phase 2 technical and price proposal for consideration. Failure to submit required information may result in the rejection of the entire proposal. The following factors will be evaluated in Phase 2:

Evaluation Factor 3: Technical Approach of the D-B Sample Project.

Evaluation Factor 4: Price of the D-B Sample Project.

The Government will carry Phase 1 evaluations forward into the Phase 2 evaluation. There is no separate submission of Phase 1 information required or allowed during Phase 2. The Government will consider both Phase 1 and Phase 2 submissions when determining which proposals provide the best value to the Government.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Source Selection Authority’s/Procuring Contracting Officer’s (PCO) intent is to award a target of five (5) contracts but not to exceed eight (8) contracts under this MATOC to the Offerors whose proposals offer the best value to the Government.

Offerors must submit a complete Phase 1 proposal to be considered for Phase 2. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE

ANY SUBMISSION OF PRICING INFORMATION.

c. General Scope of the Phase 2, Design-Build (D-B) Sample Project:

i. Phase 2 Offerors will be required to submit proposals for a D-B Sample Project, which will be further detailed in Phase 2. The general scope of the D-B Sample Project is provided for informational purposes only and is subject to revision when the Phase 2 RFP is issued via amendment only to those Offerors selected in Phase 1.

ii. D-B Sample Project: This project will convert 4 buildings in the East Division area from central plant heating systems to individual, local heat sources at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), WA. Buildings will be fitted with new natural gas fired boilers. This requires removal of existing heating equipment and installing new natural gas service lines, boilers, and ancillary equipment. New mechanical space shall be constructed to accommodate the new equipment. The Contractor is responsible for providing all labor and materials to design and construct complete and functional heating systems for all buildings according to the Statement of Work.

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 3 R0003

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

Contract Title: $95M IDIQ MATOC, DBB/DB UMMC, Small MILCON, and Large FSRM Projects.

While the proposed MATOC focuses on use within NWS, the Government reserves the ability to allow use within the larger Northwest Division geographic boundaries on an as needed basis. The MATOC will have a base period of three years plus one two-year option period, sharing a total combined maximum contract capacity of $95M. The work contemplated under this contract will involve a broad range of new construction, repair, and renovation, and both DBB and DB task orders with an estimated project size between $250K and $15M.

Note: Please see Section 00 73 00 for detailed summary of scope.

3. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE:

Please see FAR Clause 52.204-8 for the small business size standard / NAICS Code of this acquisition.

4. SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:

FAR Clause 52.232-18 “Availability of Funds,” (APR 1984) Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

5. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail sent to the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, either pre-contract or post-contract award, has a return mailing address on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. ANY MAIL addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including but not limited to; bids, modifications to bids, proposals, revised proposals, bonds, correspondence, etc., may be REJECTED by the US Army Corps of Engineers mail room facility located in Building 1202, at 4735 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98134 if it does not contain a return mailing address.

Note: Refer to paragraph 12 for submittal requirements.

6. COPIES OF RFP DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS:

Only the Phase 1 RFP documents will be posted to the beta.sam.gov website, the official U.S. Government website for people who make, receive, and manage federal awards. Only vendors selected in the next phase will be issued by amendment, the Phase 2 documents.

It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any Phase 1 documentations/amendments. Have you acknowledged receipt of ALL Amendments in your proposal? If in doubt as to number of amendments issued, please review the beta.sam.gov posting. If any of the Amendments provided amended proposal pages, the amended proposal pages must be used in submitting your proposal.

Interested Vendors List - Please log-in beta.sam.gov and search for this RFP number for the exact “contract opportunity page” to find the Interested Venders List. This is the only vender list available for this opportunity.

7. BIDDER INQUIRY (PROJNET):

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

a. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 4 R0003

Key for this RFP listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and then click continue.

b. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

c. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

d. The RFP Number is: W912DW21R0018.

e. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 775PZT-JK5TW7.

f. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 5 business days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the RFP, if necessary.

g. Offerors are requested to review the RFP in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

h. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

i. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will

NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

8. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

9. SITE VISIT:

There will not be a scheduled site visit for Phase 1 of 2.

10. ACCURACY IN PROPOSAL:

Proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this RFP (including attachments).

The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

11. PROPOSAL FORMAT:

Your proposals shall be submitted with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers.

Proposal Format for Phase 1 (All items required with the Phase 1 submission):

See Box 13 in the SF1442 above for when the Phase 1 proposal is due. Check each posted amendment (if applicable) for revised due date of your proposal.

See Section 00 22 16 Phase 1 of 2 for the technical criteria for your project examples. THERE IS NO PRICE

PROPOSAL FOR PHASE 1.

A. Phase 1 Technical Proposal:

The Offeror’s Technical Proposal should include the following sections, in the general format specified below in separate tabs:

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 5 R0003

1) Tab 1, Cover Letter: The proposal’s cover letter should be the first page and contain the following:

a. Solicitation/RFP Number.

b. Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the Offeror.

c. Offeror’s Cage Code and DUNS number.

d. Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

e. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

f. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP.

2) Tab 2, Table of Contents: The Table of Contents should list all sections contained in the proposal.

3) Tab 3, Technical Data for Evaluation: The Technical Data section should consist of all information required in Section 00 22 16 of the RFP. This section should be specific and complete, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the requirements. It should include, where applicable, diagrams and/or charts. It should demonstrate both factor requirements. It should be an orderly, specific, and complete document in every detail. (Please provide a separate section for each evaluation Factor).

Tab 3 a: Evaluation Factor 1: Design and Construction Experience Tab 3 b: Evaluation Factor 2: Past Performance

Page limitations for Factor 1 and Factor 2 are shown in Table 1, below. Tables of Content, Dividers, and blank pages are not included in the page limitations and should not be numbered. Do not submit cover sheets or cover letters for any Evaluation Factor. They will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Table 1

Evaluation Factor Title Page Limitation

1 Design and Construction Experience 3 pages per project, single-sided, and 1 page of photos or other images

2 Past Performance CPAR or completed PPQ for each submitted example project (no page limit)

Pages for each factor should be separately and sequentially numbered (i.e., the first page submitted for evaluation for each factor should be “1”). Submit offerors on 8-1/2 by 11-inch pages with 1” minimum margins and minimum 10-point font. This includes pages containing diagrams, charts, and tables.

Pages that exceed the page limitations for any factor will not be reviewed and the information contained on those pages will not be considered for evaluation. Page limitations are per factor, i.e., an Offeror may not reduce the page count for one factor in order to submit additional pages for another factor. Pages will be reviewed in the order they are presented in the proposal.

4) Tab 4, Required Documents (Please submit Tab 4 as a standalone PDF):

1) Signed SF1442

2) Acknowledgement of amendment(s)

3) Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors - Ensure they are updated in

SAM at https://www.sam.gov/.

4) Corporate Certificate

5) Joint Venture Agreement or Teaming Arrangement (Including first-tier small business subcontractor) (If applicable)

Note: There is no page limit for these required documents.

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 6 R0003

Providing additional information, which is not requested, may be viewed as a lack of cost-consciousness, and may not enhance a proposal’s chance for success. The ability to convey information as succinctly as possible is encouraged.

12. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL:

In strict compliance with guidance relating to the current situation with COVID-19 and social distancing, the only authorized transmission method for the complete proposals in response to this RFP is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (E-MAIL, FACSIMILE OR HAND CARRIED, ETC.)

WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the RFP. The Offeror shall send their complete proposal using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil

Please send the proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist, John Scola at john.p.scola@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer, Caroline B. Mueller at caroline.b.mueller@usace.army.mil.

Instructions for Submitting Electronic Proposal:

To reduce paperwork and cost, your proposal shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB).

If you have a large number of files, it is recommended that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Request for Upload Code:

Offerors must email the Contract Specialist, John Scola at john.p.scola@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer, Caroline B. Mueller at caroline.b.mueller@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site.

Offerors which fail to e-mail for a request code five (5) working days before the proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

File Description:

Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the e-mail notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identifiable Information (PII) in the File Description).

(Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format)

Instructions to Follow on the SAFE Website:

1. Once at the SAFE website, select the “Drop-Off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

2. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and e-mail settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the e-mail address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is John Scola at john.p.scola@usace.army.mil AND the Contracting Officer is Caroline B. Mueller at caroline.b.mueller@usace.army.mil. The e-mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the e-mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialist. The Proposer can enter

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 7 R0003

an additional e-mail address if desired. After entering the e-mail address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) e-mail to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTES:

Please do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group e-mail accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your e-mail address. Entering an incorrect e-mail may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. The Proposer can confirm proper submission by the “Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

Receipt of Submissions:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

Instructions for Documents Requiring Hard Copy (Original Signatures):

Timeliness of the submission of your offer will be determined as described in the above electronic submission instructions (Please see Phase 2 amendment if applicable). In addition to your electronic submission, please follow up with a submission of the bonds with original signatures and send to:

FED-EX/UPS:

John Scola, Contract Specialist, Building 1202 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

CECT-NWS CTA

4735 East Marginal Way S., Bldg. #1202 Seattle, WA 98134-2385 Note: Commercial Carriers will not deliver to PO Boxes

OR

MAIL:

John Scola, Contract Specialist, Building 1202 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

CECT-NWS CTA

PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755

13. JOINT VENTURE & TEAMING ARRANGEMENT PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS:

Joint Ventures: Joint Ventures are considered as Prime Contractors. When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442, unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the fully executed joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a), SDVOSB or HubZone joint venture, the Offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124, 13 CFR Part 125 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively.

W912DW21R0018 00 21 16 - 8 R0003

Any of the Joint Venture partners identified in the JV agreement can submit project(s) to meet the requirement in Section 00 22 16 for evaluation.

Teaming Arrangement. As defined under FAR Subpart 9.6, a teaming arrangement means:

1. Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

2. A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

A small business prime contractor is permitted to propose a team of small business subcontractors, provided it specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in the proposal, and the Government will consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first-tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime contractor. Offerors submitting a subcontractor project for Factor 1 and offerors wishing to demonstrate experience showing working relationships with proposed teaming partners must submit the following as part of Phase 1:

a. Provide a listing of the team arrangement members’ corporate name (no abbreviations), address, point of contact, phone number, DUNS Number, and Cage Code.

b. Submit a copy of the fully executed teaming agreement between each team member. All teaming agreements shall:

1. Clearly identify the expected relationship, roles and responsibilities between the firms, Prime contractor, and of the subcontractor or other entity (type and proportion of work to be performed); and;

2. Shall be signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each firm.

14. MISTAKE IN PROPOSAL:

Have you reviewed your proposal prices for possible errors in calculations or work left out? Errors and Omissions:

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Division in writing (email is the preferred method) with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

15. POINT OF CONTACT (POC):

The contracting point of contact for this RFP is John Scola, Contract Specialist, at USACE Seattle District john.p.scola@usace.army.mil. All technical questions must be asked in ProjNet (Please see paragraph 6 above).

16. RFP PROVISIONS:

Please see Section 00 45 00 and 00 21 00.

END OF SECTION 00 21 16

W912DW21R0018 Page 1 R0003

SECTION 00 22 16

PHASE 1 OF 2

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARDS

1. BASIS FOR AWARD:

The Small Business MATOC awards will be made based on best value to the Government utilizing the Best Value, Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and the Two- Phase Design-Build (D-B) Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.3.

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of a technical factor and past performance. The two non-price Phase 1 factors are listed below:

Factor 1: Design and Construction Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those Offerors who submit the most highly rated proposals in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only Offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2. A maximum of eight (8) Offerors with the most highly rated proposals will be selected for participation in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, a competitive range will be established. If the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the number of proposals in the competitive range may be limited to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 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.

The Phase 2 factors are listed below:

Factor 3: Technical Approach of the D-B Sample Project Factor 4: Price of the D-B Sample Project

The price proposal will not be assigned a rating for evaluation. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest prices offered. Awards will be made based on the proposals found to be the most advantageous to the Government considering non-price and price proposals.

The use of a D-B Sample Project is anticipated to meet price competition requirements for this Small Business MATOC and will be used in the trade-off process among non-price factors. Further, Offerors will be required to submit a completed rate schedule, to include Not-To-Exceed Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rates, as part of the Phase 2 (Factor 4) submission requirements.

2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS:

The Relative Importance of the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 Evaluation Factors are identified in Table 1 below:

Table 1:

Factor 1: Design and Construction Experience (Phase 1)

All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price are equal, and when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

Factor 2: Past Performance (Phase 1) Factor 3: Technical Approach of the D-B Sample Project (Phase 2) Factor 4: Price of the D-B Sample Project (Phase 2)

W912DW21R0018 Page 2 R0003

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS:

All offers received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection; Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection procedures; and Army Source Selection procedures.

The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible Offeror(s) who submits the offer that is the Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all responsible proposals received in response to this solicitation.

4. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS:

Phase 1 Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

5. DEFINITIONS:

Complexity relates to the number of activities, trades, or similar entities involved in a project, the number of relationships between them and the number of constraints imposed on them that must be managed to successfully execute the project.

Construction means construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other real property. For purposes of this definition, the terms "buildings, structures, or other real property" include, but are not limited to, improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels. Construction does not include the manufacture, production, furnishing, construction, alteration, repair, processing, or assembling of vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal property.

Deficiency is 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.

Design means defining the construction requirement (including the functional relationships and technical systems to be used, such as architectural, environmental, structural, electrical, mechanical, and fire protection), producing the technical specifications and drawings, and preparing the construction cost estimate.

Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B) means the traditional delivery method where design and construction are sequential and contracted for separately, with two contracts and two contractors.

Design-Build (DB) means combining design and construction in a single contract with one contractor.

A Military facility: For the purposes of this RFP, Military facilities are those constructed on behalf of a Department of Defense (DoD) agency AND is one that is designed in accordance with DoD Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) and constructed in accordance with DoD Unified Facility Guide Specifications (UFGS), both of which are available at https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/. Eligible projects could include work on Military installations or ancillary work (e.g. entrances or infrastructure outside of installations serving Military installations undertaken by a DoD customer). Note that DoD includes the five branches of the Military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force) as well as subordinate agencies (e.g. the Defense Logistics Agency), but does not include the US Coast Guard which falls under the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal facility: For the purposes of this RFP, Federal facilities include any other non-DoD Federal agency, including the Department of Homeland Security. Eligible work on Federal facilities must have been awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) by an authorized Federal agency.

W912DW21R0018 Page 3 R0003

Offeror: For purposes of this requirement, the Offeror is defined as the Prime Offeror as well as the individual members of a joint venture or teaming arrangement. See Section 00 21 16 for additional information regarding documentation required for Joint Ventures and Team Arrangements. Reference FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements. NOTE: An offeror that intends to utilize its first-tier small business subcontractor’s past performance and experience MUST identify this intent in its proposal.

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.

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

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

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

A. Phase 1: Factor 1 – Design and Construction Experience.

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit at least four (4) and no more than six (6) project examples of design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (D-B-B) projects. At least three (3) project examples shall be DB projects. If more than six

(6) project examples are submitted, only the first six (6) will be evaluated, in the order they are presented in the proposal.

Project examples should illustrate at least three (3) of the facility types described in “Specialized Experience,” (see below). Project examples should clearly demonstrate the design and construction capabilities of the Offeror.

Submit a separate Attachment 1, “Offeror’s Relevant Experience Form,” for each project example, describing each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the submitted

W912DW21R0018 Page 4 R0003 project examples. Limit each Attachment 1 to four (4) pages (including no more than one page of photographs or other images).

1. Project examples shall have been awarded to the Offeror named on the SF1442 for this RFP.

2. Each project example shall have a contract (stand-alone contract or single task order) dollar value at date of award that is $500,000 or greater and a Building Occupancy Date (BOD) (or date when construction was 100% complete and accepted by the customer) that is within six (6) years of the due date of the Phase 1

RFP.

3. Table 2 below has example scenarios based on the requirements above:

Table 2 - Scenario Examples:

Past Project Role Qualifies for Evaluation for Factor 1 (if all other requirements are met)?

Past project was awarded to Company X only. Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for

W912DW21R0018.

Yes

Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Past project was awarded to Company Y only. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for

W912DW21R0018.

Yes

Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Past project was awarded to JV Company YZ. Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for

W912DW21R0018.

Yes

Past Project was awarded to Company “AY,” a JV composed of Company A (not Prime Offeror for RFP W912DW21R0018) and Company Y. Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”). JV Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor and has signed the SF 1442 for W912DW21R0018.

Yes

Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for W912DW21R0018. Company Y performed work on the past project but was not the Prime Contractor for the past project (either singly or as a member of a JV).

Yes

Company X is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for W912DW21R0018. Company X will use Company R as a teaming member or subcontractor but Company R is not part of a JV with Company X for W912DW21R0018. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not Company X (singly or as a member of a JV).

Yes

W912DW21R0018 Page 5 R0003

Company Y has formed a JV with Company Z (forming Company “YZ”).

Company YZ is proposing as a Prime Contractor for W912DW21R0018 and has signed the SF 1442 for W912DW21R0018. Company YZ will use Company R as a teaming member/subcontractor but Company R is not part of the JV. The past project was awarded to Company R as a Prime Contractor (singly or as a member of a JV), but not to Companies Y or Z (singly or as a member of a JV).

Yes

Evaluation Method:

Factor 1 will be evaluated for the quantity and quality of experience demonstrated.

a) Specialized Experience: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s breadth of Specialized Experience of the submitted projects based on demonstrated experience in design, construction, and repair of the following facility types (in descending order of importance).

1) Military administrative, training, and physical fitness facilities.

2) Military hangars, maintenance facilities, and warehouses.

3) Military community centers, education centers, youth/child development centers.

4) Military barracks, quarters or dormitories, and short-term lodging facilities.

5) Federal site infrastructure (streets and highways, access controls, parking) and utilities.

6) Federal facilities.

The Government may give additional consideration to the following:

Experience with more important facility types (1, 2, and 3) as defined above.

Experience with more than three (3) design build (DB) projects.

Experience with four (4) or more facility types as defined above.

b) Depth of Experience:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Depth of Experience of the submitted projects based on the following:

Prime Offeror shows strengths in self-performance of the construction, maintenance and/or repair

(including work type and total amount as percent of contract award).

Prime Offeror and its design team show prior work experience in delivery of the example projects and project types.

The Government may give additional consideration to Offeror with-identified capabilities for the

D-B team designer(s) of record experience with USACE design and D-B criteria in the Whole

Building Design Guide (https://www.wbdg.org) Offeror experience with USACE Resident Management System (RMS) requirements for schedule, submittal preparation and approval (DOR versus Government), and safety during construction.

c) Complexity of Experience:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Complexity of Experience of the submitted projects based on the following:

W912DW21R0018 Page 6 R0003

Ability of the Offeror to adapt to changing site conditions to successfully execute example project completion (examples include demolition, hazardous material (asbestos/lead) removal and/or abatement, and waste transportation, among others).

Experience of the Offeror in project execution where coordination is required involving multiple contractors on adjacent work sites.

Experience in Offeror in managing project execution of facilities with significant site restrictions or security constraints

The Government may give additional consideration to the following:

Offeror coordination, sequencing and/or scheduling of multiple subcontractors, disciplines, or trades.

The evaluation rating for Factor 1 will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths (including significant strengths), weaknesses (including significant weaknesses), and deficiencies of the proposal. The Government Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings.

Technical Merit Ratings:

Non-Price Evaluation Factor 1 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 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method,” and the risk descriptions listed below in “Table 4 – Technical Risk Rating Method.”

Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Color 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.

W912DW21R0018 Page 7 R0003

Table 4 – Technical Risk Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased cost 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.

B. Phase 1 – Factor 2 – Past Performance:

Submission Requirements

The Government will use past performance information on the project examples submitted for Factor 1 to evaluate Past Performance of the Offeror. DO NOT provide Past Performance information for projects other than those project examples provided for Factor 1.

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 CPAR rating is not available for ALL projects submitted under Factor 1, Design and Construction Experience, Offerors are strongly urged to submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for those project(s).

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) evaluation is available (final or interim), it should be submitted with the proposal. Note that if a final CPAR is available, only the final CPAR should be submitted. An Offeror should not submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) when a CPAR evaluation is available. If both are submitted, the CPAR evaluation will be considered authoritative. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal ONLY if a CPAR 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 2), 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 contact, John Scola, via email at john.p.scola@usace.army.mil. PPQs are required prior to the proposal closing date. The Offeror shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email 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.

Do not incorporate by reference any PPQs or CPAR previously submitted for other solicitations (i.e., the PPQ or CPAR must be submitted in full). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

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

W912DW21R0018 Page 8 R0003

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

(PPQ) for projects completed within six (6) years submitted under Factor 1, Design and Construction 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.

Evaluation Method:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information related to projects submitted in response to this solicitation.

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.

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.

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

The third is to assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant efforts. 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, and safety requirements, among others.

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

Past performance under Factor 2 will be evaluated using the four (4) levels of relevancy as stated in Table 5 and five (5) levels of confidence as stated in Table 6:

Table 5 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Ratings: Descriptions:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort…