Amendment R0001_ 24R0008_17APR24.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 W912DW24R0008

Amendment R0001

(Please see Continuation Page for more details)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 36

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Apr-2024

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 W912DW24R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Mar-2024

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

17-Apr-2024

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:

W912DW24R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

CONTINUATION PAGE R0001

The following have been added by full text: CONTINUATION PAGE R0001

This amendment one (0001) provides for the following:

1. 2.1.2 Section, 00 22 00 were revised highlighted in yellow.

2. The Davis Bacon Act Wage Determination PA20240090 was revised to modification number 1 published on 05 April 2024.

3. Provisions/Clauses: The following provisions/clauses were revised:

. 252.244-7000, Subcontracts for Commercial Products or Commercial Services . 252.204-7007, Alternate A, Annual Representation and Certification . 52.203-17, Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights . 252.204-7020 NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements . 52.204-7 System for Award Management . 52.204-7 Alt I System for Award ---Alternate I . 52.204-23 Prohibition on Contracting Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky . 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns . 52.225-11 Buy American---Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements . 52.244-6 Subcontracts for Commercial Products and Commercial Services . 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

4. The proposal due date/time remains the same at 10:00 AM (PST) on Monday, 24 April 2024.

5. The attached revised sections are to be replaced in their entirety. Specifications changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, highlighted in yellow 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.

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

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Plans 23-JAN-2024

Attachment 2 Specifications 28-FEB-2024 Attachment 3 WD PA202400090 23-FEB-2024 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Revised Specifications 16-APR-2024 Attachment 2 Revised Drawings 16-APR-2024 Attachment 3 PA20240090 Wage

Determination

05-APR-2024

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal following a tradeoff analysis that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the two (2) evaluation factors: Past performance and Technical Approach, both of which are of equal importance.

These non-price factors when combined will be significantly more important than price. To receive consideration for award, the proposal must obtain an evaluation rating of “Neutral Confidence” or higher for Factor 1 Past Performance, must obtain an evaluation rating of “Acceptable” or higher for Factor 2 Technical Approach, and must have a price that is considered fair and reasonable. Award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered under a best value tradeoff evaluation.

The Offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to all factors and meet the minimum submittal requirements stated. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S. Code § 1001. All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final.

The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The successful Offeror will be selected solely on the basis of the evaluation factors set forth below.

Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to the Solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3), the Government intends to make an award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions, the Offeror is encouraged to put forth their best proposal.

B. DEFINITIONS

a) Clarification is a limited exchange with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal or to address adverse past performance not previously addressed with the Offeror. Clarifications do not give an Offeror the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal and are used, as necessary, when not opening discussions.

b) Communications are a limited exchange with an Offeror used to assist in determinations of the competitive range. Communications are limited to enhancing Government understanding of proposals and addressing adverse past performance information not previously addressed if said information is the determining factor preventing an Offeror from being included in the competitive range. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, or otherwise revise the proposal.

c) Complexity means the many varied elements of work or sequencing of the work required for a similar project.

d) Deficiency: 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.

e) Discussions offer the opportunity to resolve deficiencies or weaknesses in the proposals, based on the requirement and the evaluations factors set forth in the solicitation. If the Contracting Officer determines it is necessary to open discussions, they must discuss with all Offerors in the competitive range.

Offerors have the opportunity to revise their proposals at the conclusion of discussions.

f) Good Faith Effort: Entails evidence that an “Other than Small” concern has provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business Concern members by complying with its subcontracting plan, subcontracting responsibilities with supporting documentation prescribed by 13 CFR §125.3 – Subcontracting assistance.

g) Key Subcontractor: A subcontractor who at a minimum directly performed at least 51% of all of the major or critical aspects of a “relevant” construction project.

h) Magnitude means the dollar value of the project examples.

i) Other than Small Business Concern: All other entities including large business concerns, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, public utilities, educational institutions and foreign-owned firms that are awarded federal contracts for performance within the United States.

j) Past Performance: Assessment of the Offeror’s probability and meeting the minimum past performance requirements.

k) Similar: Not identical but showing a resemblance in qualities or characteristics of the project

l) Small Business Concern: See FAR Clause 52.219-8

m) Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A “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.

n) Subcontract: Any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a Federal Government prime Contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract.

o) Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

p) Year: A “year” is 365 consecutive days.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

FACTOR 1: Past Performance - Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and quality.

FACTOR 2: Technical Approach - Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the technical approach as it applies to Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work of the solicitation.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

FACTOR 3: Price - The resulting contract will be a firm fixed-price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal. Offers will also be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Non-Price Evaluation Factors are as follows:

2.1 Factor 1- Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required work during performance of the awarded contract. The past performance evaluation considers an offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services required to meet the contract’s requirements. The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality of performance (including general trends in contractor performance and source information). These will be combined to establish one past performance rating for each Offeror.

2.1.1 Relevancy of Past Performance, Tab 1a

The Offeror shall submit information on at least two (2) projects, but no more than four (4) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience. If more than four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four projects will be evaluated. Relevant means that submitted projects are similar in terms of scope, and complexity as work described in Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work of the solicitation.

The relevancy of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance projects will be rated based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e., how well the project’s scope is described) and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00. Summary of Work, as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e., how many of the Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope). Offerors shall ensure each project meets the definition of a ‘project’ below.

2.1.2 Past Performance Relevancy Submission Criteria

Criteria for the Offeror’s Factor 1:

a. Submit information of at least two (2), but no more than four (4) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s relevant past work and subsequent performance.

b. Ensure submitted projects are relevant to the work requirements noted in Section 01 11 00 of the RFP individually or in combination thereof.

c. Ensure each submitted project meets the definition of a ‘project’, as defined below; AND Submitted projects shall be at least 100% physically completed, not based on amount t invoiced, within the last six (6) years prior from date of proposal submission. At least 100% physically completed means at least 100% of the contractual requirements have been accomplished.

d. Submit Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary Form (Attachment 1) for each submitted project. Detailed project relevance narrative that, at a minimum, provides a description of how the project is relevant.

Include information regarding the following, at a minimum:

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. Submit a copy of the fully executed Joint Venture Agreement (See Section 00 21 00 for details).

For project(s) submitted where work was performed as a Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate as opposed to a Prime Contractor, the Offeror must submit a separate statement (in addition to the Offeror Past performance Form) that includes the total contract amount, the dollar amount of the work performed as the Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate, a description of the elements of work specifically completed by the Offeror (or the Offeror’s Key Subcontractor) while working as a Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate, and the percentage of work performed as the Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate . The statement must also justify how the Offeror (or the Offeror’s Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) meets the definition of “Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate” in the context of the example project(s) submitted. The statement must not exceed one (1) 8.5” x 11” double-sided page or two (2) 8.5” x 11” single-sided pages, regardless of the total number of projects submitted where work was performed as a Key Subcontractor or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate.

e. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1a should be limited to four (4) pages per project with a minimum10-point font, single spaced.

2.1.3 Evaluation Definitions

a) Scope is defined as:

The work generally includes renovating Building #’s 2274, 2275 and 2276 to include removal/reinstall column protector, reposition light fixtures, equipment demolition, installation power pole mounted transformer, diamond polished floor slab, construct unisex bathrooms, construct/install high bay warehouse doors, construct three-sided structure between warehouses to include loading dock, and demolish/construct security fencing. See Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work, para. 1.2.1 Project Description for additional information.

b) An Offeror is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, an ‘Offeror’ shall be defined as the Prime submitting the proposal. The past experience and past performance record of each firm meeting the definition in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

c) Prime is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, a ‘Prime’ shall be defined as the Firm or any of the Firms making up a Joint Venture (JV) submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

d) A Project is defined as:

In order to be deemed a ‘project’, it must meet one, and only one, of the following:

a. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performed at one single site.

b. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work at multiple sites within one single installation or facility.

c. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at one single site (the following also will qualify as a non- ‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call;

single order against a GSA Schedule; or Purchase Order).

d. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple sites within one single installation or facility (the following also will qualify as a non-‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule; or Purchase Order).

e. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities, states, etc.; OR

f. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities, states, etc. (the following also will qualify as a non- ‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule; or Purchase Order)

e) Recent is defined as:

Project that has been completed within six (6) years prior from date of proposal submission, or one where the construction is at least 100% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the solicitation issue date. (Offerors are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project.

f) Relevant is defined as:

Projects that are similar in scope (type, size, complexity and dollar value) to the project described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy”, it must reflect performance of construction type work similar to the project required by this solicitation.

In order for a project to be deemed relevant, the offeror shall demonstrate specific minimum relevancy by meeting the following four (4) elements. All minimum relevancy factors listed in paragraphs 1 through 4 below may be combined in one or more project examples.

1. Project Management of a project constructed for the Department of Defense (DoD) that has a minimum magnitude equal to or greater than $5M.

2. Demonstrate experience in full and usable vertical construction of a minimum 5,000 square foot canopy, shed, or like facility.

3. Interior slab concrete diamond polishing, slab leveling, and joint repair. NOTE:

Contractor shall have a minimum of 5-years’ experience totaling at least one-million square feet of installed polished concrete AND shall have certification in the craft of diamond polishing concrete floors AND certificates of training for the products used.

4. Installation of a minimum of 10,000 linear feet of warehouse pallet storage racks.

g) Quality of Performance is defined as:

The offeror’s quality or work, as well as the offeror’s management of a quality control program, while performing as a contractor on past contracts. Quality will be reviewed for all past performance information collected to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance. The evaluation of quality will be used to determine if the offeror has demonstrated consistent quality of performance that conformed to contractual requirements. Specific to construction contracts/orders, the evaluation of an offeror’s quality of performance may include and consider the following aspects based on information obtained from past projects:

- Has a quality product been provided?

- Did the contractor maintain a quality control system during contract performance?

If yes, how well were the following areas performed:

Contractor’s ability to maintain quality control.

Performance of accessory testing Implementation of 3-phase inspection process CQC (Contractor Quality Control) documentation Identification and correction of deficient work Reviews of materials and shop drawings Whether there was incorporation of unspecified materials

For establishing the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance, the evaluation conducted does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers and through review of assessment reports (i.e., CPARs) to determine how well the offeror performed on past contracts. A separate quality assessment rating will not be given, rather, Factor 1 Past Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall evaluation of recency, relevance, and quality of performance.

2.1.4 Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary:

The Past Performance Project Relevance Information Summary Form (Attachment A) must be used, completed in its entirety, and submitted as part of Factor 1 for each project. The information obtained from this form is required to evaluate relevancy. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information; however, the use of an alternate form will not be accepted.

2.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaires, Tab 1b

For each submitted project, the Offeror shall request a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment C), from those Government agencies or private sector companies’ Point of Contact identified for each project. These agency or company contacts must have detailed information concerning the performance of the project in order to accurately complete the PPQ for the Offeror. The POCs may be contacted by the SSEB to assess the scope of work performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the previous experience tab of this volume, if necessary; therefore, it is imperative to ensure correct telephone and email addresses are identified for the client POCs on each PPQ.

The Offeror may also provide a narrative for each project with a PPQ submitted under Tab 1b Past Performance Questionnaire that could include past performance information such as if it was completed on-time/budget, whether or not the Offeror encountered any performance issues or challenges, and key and/or best management practices the Offeror employed to sustain successful performance for each past performance project submitted. If performance issues, customer dissatisfaction or challenges did arise, provide information on what corrective action was implemented or how they were addressed and outcomes. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1b should be limited to 2 pages per project with a minimum 10-point font, single spaced. The narrative information will count toward the page limit; however, the PPQs are excluded from the page count.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal by the proposal due date. Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. However, If the Offeror’s client requests, he/she may submit the questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Cassandra Gonzalez, via email at cassandra.p.gonzalez@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

PPQs previously completed for projects in Tab 1a by the project’s POC may be submitted in lieu of requesting the POC to re-complete the form;

however, Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

CPARS evaluations shall not be submitted by the Offeror in place of a PPQ

If one or more of the client’s POCs do not reply to the Offeror’s request to complete the PPQ, the Government may elect to contact them utilizing the reference information provided for each submitted project. Therefore, the Offeror must ensure the information provided for each project is accurate (i.e., POC name, telephone number, email address, etc.).

In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review and consider any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE Codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror (including information from Government personnel and databases).

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

The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal and, if applicable, information obtained from available sources identified previously. A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Government.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

In addition to the project information requested in this section, the Offeror shall also provide notification and information concerning any projects where it’s right to proceed was terminated for the convenience of the Government or for default/cause during the last six (6) years, or so state that there were none. If any contracts were terminated, whether for convenience or default/cause, the Offeror shall list each, providing the contract number, title, brief type of work effort, and the reason for the termination.

2.1.6 Past Performance Ratings

Past Performance considers ‘how well’ an Offeror performed and executed requirements on previous contracts. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet or exceed the contract’s requirements, resulting in a Relevancy Rating. A Performance Confidence Rating is also assigned for each Offeror’s Past Performance after assessing and evaluating their past performance, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the contract requirements.

As a result, an Offeror’s Past Performance rating will consist of two components:

1) a relevancy rating; and 2) a confidence assessment rating. An assigned Past Performance Factor rating will be comprised of one rating from Table 1 (relevancy) and one rating from Table 2 (confidence assessment) resulting in a Relevancy/Confidence Assessment rating (i.e., Relevant/Substantial Confidence.

Somewhat Relevant/Limited Confidence, etc.).

The Government will consider past performance information as submitted in accordance with Section 00 21 00 Instruction to proposers of this solicitation and may also consider recent and relevant past performance information outside of the information provided by the Offeror and its customers. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror as their Past Performance for evaluation, as well as information that may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, CPARS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

2.1.7 Relevancy Assessment

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance information to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be performed under this contract. The relevancy of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance projects will be rated based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e., how well the project’s scope is described and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00.

Summary of Work, as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e., how many of the Section 01 11 00. Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope). Criteria establishing what is recent and what aspects are considered relevant is stated in Volume I, Factor 1 – Past Performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contract past performance based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures as reproduced in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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

RELEVANT past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.1.8 Confidence

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of the source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment.

Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record, or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2 - 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

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

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

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

NO CONFIDENCE

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

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

2.2 Factor 2- Technical Approach: This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outlines all major work necessary to complete those tasks.

Major tasks as identified in Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work of the solicitation include:

1. Project Management of a project constructed for the Department of Defense (DoD) that has a minimum magnitude equal to or greater than $5M.

2. At least one submitted project example shall demonstrate experience in full and usable vertical construction of a minimum 5,000 square foot canopy, shed, or like facility.

Project example should be similar in scope and complexity to the vertical construction of the proposed project scope as it relates to the dock canopy being constructed between buildings 2275 and 2276.

3. At least one submitted project example shall demonstrate experience in interior slab concrete diamond polishing, slab leveling, and joint repair. NOTE: Contractor shall have a minimum of 5-years’ experience totaling at least 100,000 square feet of installed polished concrete AND shall have certification in the craft of diamond polishing concrete floors AND certificates of training for the products used. Please refer to the Specifications Division 3 Section 03 35 00.00 20 Part 1.3.3 Installer Certification for the installer requirements.

4. Installation of a minimum of 10,000 linear feet of warehouse pallet storage racks.

The Offeror must submit a technical approach narrative to explain their company’s capabilities to execute the construction work required by the solicitation. Factor 2 shall not exceed forty (40) pages with a minimum 10-point font single spaced. Any reference drawings will not apply to the page limit. Address the following items, in a narrative format for accomplishing each major task (Construction on a DOD Installation with Minimum Magnitude of $5M, full and usable vertical construction, Interior Concrete Slab Diamond Polishing, warehouse pallet storage racks) of work below:

a. Describe your planned sequence of events and discuss coordination and interface with the operationally active facility for each phase of construction. Specifically address outages or cutovers that will occur during execution.

b. Address the likely risks and challenges to providing the equipment required in the RFP. In addition, address likely risks and challenges to mission critical systems due to cutovers and outages that will be required during installation, testing and commissioning. Include the Offeror’s plan for managing these risks.

c. Clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to execution of this requirement. Specifically address any subcontractors that are intended to be used and organizational relationships.

d. Describe the Contractor Roles for performing the work in this solicitation. Identify whether the offeror will be self-performing, or sub-contracting the major tasks of work indicated above.

The Government will determine the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, if any, in the approach presented, and then assign an overall combined technical/risk rating as listed below. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum technical requirements in determining strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s technical approach the Government will consider the attributes included in the list below.

a. How well the technical approach addresses the essential work tasks needed to complete the project, including critical path items, provides a realistic schedule duration for each work task, and sequences work tasks in a logical order.

b. The feasibility of the Offeror’s plan for managing and coordinating the tasks and durations included in the list below

1) Procurement, delivery, installation, testing and commissioning of equipment

2) Submittal review periods

3) Long lead items

4) Cutovers on mission critical systems

5) Completion within the contract required period of performance

c. How well the approach identifies risks/challenges and reasonableness of the Offeror’s plan to manage those risks/challenges

d. How well the approach describes the subcontractor coordination and communication necessary to successfully complete the work.

2.2.1 Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Technical Approach- Technical Risk Rating Method

Ratings Description

HIGH Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

MODERATE Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

LOW Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.2.2 The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 4 below and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 3.

Table 4 Technical Approach -Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Ratings Description

OUTSTANDING Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

ACCEPTABLE Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

2.3 Factor 3- Price: The Price Proposal will be evaluated using price analysis techniques to determine price reasonableness.

2.3.1The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

E. Submission Format (Refer to Section 00 21 00)

All proposals must be prepared in two volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I) and a non-technical proposal (Volume II). Each of the volumes must be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other.

a. 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) Factor 1- Past Performance Factor 2- Technical Approach

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

Signed Solicitation Offer, and Award (SF 1442). An official having the authority to contractually bind the Offeror’s firm must sign the SF 1442, blocks 20B and 20C in accordance with FAR 4.102. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all parties to the Joint Venture must sign the offer. Acknowledge all Amendment(s).

Proposal Data Sheet SF 1442 and Bid Schedule, Section 00 11 00. (Filled out in its entirety) Bid Guarantee Pre-Award Information found at back of Section 00 45 00 (filled out in its entirety)

Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Joint Venture Agreement (see Section 00 21 00) Banking and Financial Statements (see Section 00 22 00)

- Prior to making an award, the Contracting Officer must determine that any Offeror is responsible both financially and technically and has the capability to properly manage the contract during performance and complete the work on time. The Offeror must submit the required pre-award information, which includes, but not limited to:

o Representations and Certifications (Solicitation, Section 00 45 00).

o Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The Offeror must provide a disclosure statement with its proposal that concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present OCIs relating to the Solicitation. If applicable, in the same statement, the Offeror must provide information to assure the Government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award, the Contracting Officer will decide on whether or not to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror must provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

o Financial Statement. Submit a copy of your most recent financial statements. The statements must include a Balance Sheet and Income Statement. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number). If the financial statements are more than 120 days old, attach a certificate stating that the financial condition is substantially the same, or if not the same, describe the changes which have taken place since the financial statements were prepared.

o Bank Letters. Provide evidence of adequate financing arrangements, such as commitments from lending institutions, etc., to perform this contract. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number). Reference letters should include, but is not limited to, the following information: (1) the date the Offeror’s account was open with the financial institution, (2) the average balance for the last 12 months on the Offeror’s account (i.e., balance in the xx digits), (3) if there is a credit line established with the financial institution, what is the credit amount and how much is available at this time? If not, would the financial institution be willing to establish a line of credit for the Offeror? And if so, for how much (i.e., low xx figure range), (4) how the financial institution evaluates the Offeror as a customer (i.e., poor, fair, very good, excellent, etc.), and (5) the financial institution should declare whether the Offeror’s account is in good standings. This information will be treated confidentially but may be checked for verification.

Attachment A:

Past Performance Project Relevancy

Information Summary Form

Project Name:

Project Location:

Address:

Installation Name (if applicable)

Owners/Client Point of Contract (POC):

POC Name:

POC Phone Number:

POC E-mail:

Contract Number: Task Order Number (if applicable):

Was the project terminated early, were cure/show-cause letters issued or were Liquidated Damages assessed?

Yes or No (if yes, explain)

Offeror’s Role: (Prime or Subcontractor) [What specific items of work did you perform as the prime or subcontractor]

Percentage of total value of contract performed by the Offeror: (If the Offeror was the Prime, what percentage was subcontracted; if the Offeror was the subcontractor, what dollar amount and percentage of the total project amount, as well as the total contract amount, was awarded to the subcontractor?)

Date Contract and/or Award began: Original Completion Date:

Actual Completion Date (or ongoing, if applicable):

Initial Award Amount: Final Contract Amount:

Amount added by modification(s): Percentage the project is physically complete to date:

Explanation (reason) of any cost growth:

Explanation of any late finish or time extensions:

General Project Narrative: [General scope. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal.]

Performance Issues Encountered: [Describe any performance issues encountered. This could include technical, cost/schedule, health and safety issues, regulatory/stakeholder issues, and other performance issues, as well as what was implemented to overcome these issues and the results.]

Applicable Section 01 11 00 Criteria: [highlight specific elements from the Section 01 11 00. of this RFP that encompasses each submitted past performance project]

Major Project Accomplishments:

END OF ATTACHMENT A

Attachment B

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Include the required, completed and signed SF 1442 in addition to this Proposal Data Sheet.

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Offering Firm’s Name As Appears on the SF 1442:

Offering Firm’s DUNS number as it appears on the SF 1442:

3. Mailing Address:

4. Telephone Number:

5. Fax Number:

6. E-mail Address to use for all correspondence:

7. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. The Offeror represents that the following person(s) are authorized to negotiate, if needed, on its behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

List name(s), title, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiator(s). Name of Person(s) Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

END OF ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT C:

(PPQ-0)

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

d. 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…