Amendment R0004.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

W912DW24R0004 Amendment R0004 (See Amendment R0004 page for details).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912DW25R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Apr-2025

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 1 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.

P0004

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-May-2025

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:

W912DW25R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT R0004

The purpose of this amendment four (0004) is to provide the following changes:

1) Revised Section 00 22 00. Specification changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, and double underlining for text for additional or a single dark line in the margin. All potions of the revised sections shall apply whether changes have been indicated.

2) Extend the Period of Performance to 03 June 2025 at 2:00PM.

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

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 19-May-2025 12:00 PM to 03-Jun-2025 12:00 AM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION

SECTION 00 22 00

Supplementary Instructions /

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1DEFINITIONS

3.2 BID GUARANTEE

3.3 SUBMISSION FORMAT

4.0 EVALUATIN CRITERIA

4.1 CRITERIA for NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

4.2 FACTOR 1

4.3 FACTOR 2

4.4 FACTOR 3

5.0 PRICE PROPOSAL

6.0 TRADEOFF EVALUATION

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 General Information

This solicitation is an unrestricted, competitive acquisition using the Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection process for the award of a firm fixed-price type construction contract. Selection will be made based on the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Solicitation requirements, demonstrates high capability and low risk, and presents the best value offer to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. Offerors shall submit a non-price proposal and a price proposal. The evaluation results of the non-price and price proposals will determine an awardee.

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, Offerors are encouraged to put forth their best proposal.

If the Government conducts discussions, the Government will establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

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 within the Offeror’s proposal.

The successful Offeror will be selected solely based on 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.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

The basis of contract award will be Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of evaluation factors described within this section (00 22 00). Reference Table 1: Evaluation Criteria/Factors regarding relative importance of factors.

TABLE 1: Evaluation Criteria/Non-Price Factor Factor: Description: Relative Importance:

Factor 1 Past Performance Equal to Factor 2.

Factor 2 Project Narrative with Summary Schedule Equal to Factor 1.

Factor 3 Small Business Participation Less important than Factors 1 and 2.

Price will not be rated but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis. When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price. Award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS:

The evaluation process consists of three parts:

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

2. Non-Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the non-price factors of the solicitation (Past

Performance, Project Narrative with Summary Schedule and Small Business Participation) using the ratings found within this section (00 22 00).

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

3.1 Definitions: The following definitions will be used to evaluate proposals:

Clarifications: Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated.

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

Complexity: Projects that clearly demonstrate o New construction of a multi-disciplinary building (with Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Telecommunications, Civil features).

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

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

Magnitude: Greater than or equal to $100M.

Quality: how well the Offeror performed on the contract requirements.

Relevant/Relevancy: Having a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP; that is, featuring work that involved similar scope, magnitude, size, and complexity to the current requirement. See definitions for similar scope, magnitude, size and complexity.

Recent/Recency: Submitted project(s) completed within the past six (6) years from the solicitation issue date.

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 criterion may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Similar Scope: Construction of a standard Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing (Barracks) facility, or similar dormitory/apartment complex facility, as well as supporting facilities such as site preparation, utilities (electrical, water, gas, sanitary sewer, wastewater, and information systems distribution), lighting, vehicle parking, access drives, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, landscaping, roads, and other site improvements.

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

Should indicates an RFP requirement(s) that are highly recommended to be included in the Offeror’s proposal.

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

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

Similar: Resembling without being identical.

Similar Size: Greater than or equal to 70,000 Square Footage.

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

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

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

Year is 365 consecutive days.

3.2 Bid Guarantee: See provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee (SEP 1996), and paragraph 1.12 BID GUARANTEE in Section 00 21 00.

3.3 Submission Format: (Refer to Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.11 Proposal Format).

All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at https://piee.eb.mil. Refer to Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.10 PROPOSAL

SUBMITTALS.

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 CRITERIA for Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

Proposals shall concisely, accurately, and completely provide the information required for the following non-price evaluation factors. NOTE: Absence of complete information will be deemed as if no support information was provided for that factor. NO assumptions may be made by the Government. The proposal must CLEARLY demonstrate the requisite experience and performance.

Table 2: Evaluation Factors Factor: Location Description Factor 1 Volume 1, Tab A Past Performance Factor 2 Volume 1, Tab B Project Narrative with Summary Schedule Factor 3 Volume 1, Tab C Small Business Participation

4.2 FACTOR 1 (Volume 1, Tab A) – Past Performance:

Submission Requirements for Factor 1:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s present/past performance record of recency, relevancy and quality in relation to the specific requirement being procured.

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of four (4) project examples.

a) At least one (1) of the submitted projects should be Submit projects featuring construction of a facility similar in scope, magnitude, complexity, and size on a Department of DoD installation where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

b) At least two (2) of the submitted project should include Submit projects including construction of a new multi-story mass timber facility with Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) assemblies as a primary structural system where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

NOTE: The above need not be separate project.

Complete Attachment 1, Past Performance Project Form, for each submitted project. Attachment 1 shall not exceed two (2) single sided pages size (8 1/2 x 11”) per project with a minimum 10 pitch single-spaced text.

Any pages over the page limit will not be evaluated. Use one form for each project. Only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor, part of a Joint Venture, or projects for which the Offeror performed as a Key Subcontractor shall be submitted. Offeror should describe each project with enough detail to ensure the Government can meaningfully assess whether the projects submitted are recent and relevant to this project. If more than four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four (4) will be evaluated, in the order they are presented in the proposal.

All submitted projects shouldl be 100% construction complete, accepted by the client and have been completed within six (6) years of the issue date of this RFP. Two (2) of the four (4) projects must have been performed by the Offeror acting as the Prime Contractor. Additional project examples may have been performed by the Offeror acting as a Key Subcontractor.

Using a Relevant Experience Matrix similar to that shown below in Table 3, clearly identify to which experience area(s) each project example pertains (i.e. Project 1 for the Prime Offeror demonstrating experience with Similar Scope, Complexity, Magnitude, Size, DOD Installation, Prime, and Mass Timber Facilities; Project 4 demonstrating experience of a Key Subcontractor with Similar in Scope, and Mass Timber Facility).

TABLE 3: Relevant Experience Matrix

Project Title

Similar in Scope

Similar in Complexity

Magnitude Size

DOD

Installation Prime

Mass Timber

(CLT)

Project 1 X X X X X X X

Project 2 X X X X X X X

Project 3 X X

Project 4 X X

Each Offeror’s past performance will initially be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s past performance is recent or relevant to the RFP. Recent projects are those projects completed within the past six (6) years from the RFP issue date featuring work which are similar in scope, magnitude, size, and complexity to what is required in the RFP. If the proposal is from a Joint Venture or Partnership, Past Performance information for each partner will be reviewed.

In addition, the Government will review/verify past performance information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), when available.

NOTE: For each Past Performance Project form submitted, the Offeror shall submit either Attachment 2 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (use one form per project) or the final or most recent CPARS for the project. Attachment 2 (PPQ) and CPARS pages do not count towards the Past Performance Project form page limit.

An Offeror shall not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available. If both are submitted, only the CPARS will be evaluated. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal ONLY if a CPARS evaluation is not available. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 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 contacts, Andrea G. Jackson, via email andrea.g.jackson@usace.army.mil and Mary A. Hesser, via email mary.a.hesser@usace.army.mil to the solicitation closing date. The Offeror shall instruct the clients to refer to the RFP number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an 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 the proposal.

Sources of Past Performance information for evaluation include:

Offeror may submit past performance information using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for projects completed within six (6) years submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance.

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 for Factor 1:

a. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum performance RFP requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the RFP requirements.

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

1. The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. The more recent the prior project experience to this RFP, may be evaluated more favorably.

2. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the solicitation. At a minimum, in assessing the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance, the Offerors shall submit projects which demonstrate work in accordance with section 3.1 Definitions, paying particular attention to the definition of Relevancy, i.e., “Having a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP; that is, featuring work that involved similar SCOPE, MAGNITUDE, SIZE and COMPLEXITY to the current requirement”. More relevant project experience prior to this RFP may be evaluated more favorably.

Additional consideration will be given for Relevancy if the submitted projects also demonstrate the following, though they are not required to meet the minimum for Relevancy:

Experience with constructing new facilities that utilize all electric technologies for system components, including, but not limited to, space conditioning, water heating, cooking, and laundry, where market-ready technologies exist.

3. The third is to assess the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance on submitted project.

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

d. Recency. See Recency definition in Paragraph 3.1 of this Section. A separate recency assessment rating will not be assigned.

e. Relevancy. Relevancy shall be evaluated using the four levels of relevancy as stated in Table 4 below.

With respect to relevancy, the more relevant past performance the stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

TABLE 4: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating: Description:

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

f. Quality. Quality refers to information gathered that illustrates how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government reserves the right to review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a single Performance Confidence Rating (Table 5) for each Offeror, an assessment of the probability an Offeror will meet contract requirements should that Offeror be awarded a contract. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on the extent of relevance/recency of prior contracts, and the quality of prior performance.

TABLE 5: Past Performance Confidence Rating

Rating: Description:

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

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

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

4.3 FACTOR 2 (Volume 1, Tab B) – Project Narrative and Summary Schedule

Submission Requirements for Factor 2:

a. This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation’s required scope of work, identifying major tasks and outlining all major work necessary to complete those tasks in alignment with solicitation-described requirements and processes.

1. Major tasks (as identified in Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work) include:

a) Construction of all facility and site requirements for a new five-story, 200-person, Barracks, which includes: living and sleeping quarters, baths, storage, service areas, information systems, fire protection and alarm systems, Energy Monitoring Control Systems (EMCS) connection, and cybersecurity measures.

b) Mass timber construction with cross-laminated timber (CLT) as the primary structural system.

c) Comprehensive cyber-security and building information systems.

Submittal Method for Factor 2:

b. Factor 2 Submittal Requirements:

1. Project Narrative: The Offeror shall submit a technical narrative to explain their company’s strategy for executing the construction work required by the solicitation. The Project Narrative shall not exceed five (5) single sided pages size (8 1/2 x 11”) with a minimum 10 pitch single-spaced text.

Any pages over the page limit will not be evaluated.

Address the following items, to include any potential execution/risk challenges:

a) Overarching Project Management narrative describing Offeror’s strategy for executing facility and site requirements of this solicitation from construction contract award to closeout.

b) Subcontractor coordination and management.

c) Construction of Mass Timber features with CLT as the primary structural system including material storage, handling, protection, assembly and finishing.

d) Construction of a five-story barracks facility.

e) Understanding of USACE Submittal, construction placement inspection, O&M Manuals and As-Built drawing, commissioning, and Work Acceptance inspection procedures.

f) Installation of intrusion detection, electronic security, as well as fire protection and alarm systems.

g) Long-lead item procurement.

h) HVAC and LEED Commissioning.

2. Summary Schedule: The Offeror shall submit a summary level schedule graphically relaying the Project Narrative and considerations described above. The Summary Schedule is for proposal evaluation purposes only and is not binding. The summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule. The summary schedule should be task-oriented, indicating number of calendar days after date of notice to proceed (NTP) by which milestones are to be achieved. The summary schedule shall assume an NTP of 9 January 2026 (solely for a consistent frame of reference for all offerors), indicate a Critical Path, and relay completion of contract requirements within this solicitation’s contract duration (reference FAR clause 52.211-10 “Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work”). The schedule shall be graphically represented using the Primavera P6 Gantt Chart layout, or similar. Ensure the schedule methodology is realistic and achievable. Ensure activity durations appear reasonable compared to the activity’s magnitude and complexity, and that relationships appear reasonable and are in-line with normal construction processes.

Include the following elements in the summary schedule:

a) Planned sequence and duration of events for each major phase of construction.

b) USACE submittal, construction placement inspection, O&M Manuals, As-Built Drawing, commissioning, and work acceptance inspection activities.

c) Installation of intrusion detection, electronic security, as well as fire protection and alarm systems.

d) Long-lead item procurement.

e) HVAC and LEED Commissioning.

Evaluation Method for Factor 2:

1. The Government will assign an overall combined technical/risk rating in accordance with Tables 6 and 7 below.

TABLE 6 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

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 unawardable.

Table 7 – Risk Descriptions for Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

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 any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or a combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption in 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.

The Government’s Factor 2 rating will reflect the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements. The Government will also consider the completeness and reasonableness of the submitted Project Narrative with Summary Schedule.

In determining significant strengths, strength, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and/or uncertainties for this Factor, the Government will consider the following:

a) How well the Project Narrative and Summary Schedule address the essential/major elements of work necessary to complete the project, including critical path items, as well as a realistic schedule logic, sequencing, and duration for each work task.

4.4 FACTOR 3 (Volume 1, Tab C) – Small Business Participation

Submission Requirements for Factor 3:

Other than Small Business (SB) Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment by United States (U.S.) SB in the performance of the Solicitation requirements relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as well as Offeror’s past performance complying with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The purpose of this Factor is to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the Government’s Small Business Program objectives (see 52.219-8, -9 and FAR subpart 19.7) as demonstrated through the amount of work (percent) proposed to be performed by all small business categories in relation to the total value of the project, the types of work small businesses will be performing (particularly during major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing and demolition/removal) as well as the extent of the commitment (enforceable and long-term) in using the small businesses identified in the proposal.

Other than Small Business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment to U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project, relative to the objectives and goals established for the Government’s Small Business Program and required by FAR 52.219-8, as well as Offerors’ past performance in complying with the requirements of FAR 19.704(a)(12), FAR 19.705-7 and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Note, IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), SB Offerors need not submit any information in connection with this Factor and shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor.

Other than SB Offerors shall submit the following:

SB Commitment Document (SBCD) (Attachment 3) – The Offeror shall complete and submit the SBCD, to identify the extent to which SB will participate in the performance of the Solicitation requirements.

A Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of 30 % of the total contract value (through SB participation from Small-, Small Disadvantaged-, Service-Disabled Veteran-, Veteran-Owned-, Woman-Owned SB, or Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)) is required based on the nature of the work for this project. An offeror proposing SB participation below the MQR will be considered deficient.

SB Past Performance – Submit past performance information reflecting the Offeror’s past level of small business participation for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1: Past Performance, or for any other recent and relevant projects as a prime contractor. For each project submitted under Factor 1, submit the following:

Name of the project and customer (provide federal contract number, if applicable);

Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value that was self-performed AS THE PRIME;

Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value that was SUBCONTRACTED;

Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value that was subcontracted TO SMALL BUSINESS;

Total dollar amount and percentage of the total contract value that was subcontracted to OTHER THAN SMALL

BUSINESS.

*In addition to the above project submission information, the Offeror must submit Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from eSRS [https://www.esrs.gov/] if the project was performed for a Federal agency. The Government reserves the right to review additional ISRs and SSRs of Offerors from eSRS, in addition to CPARs.

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

In determining significant strengths, strength, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and/or uncertainties for this Factor, the Government will consider the following:

a. The extent of the Offeror’s proposed commitment of SB in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in both percentage and dollar value.

b. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) and the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

c. An MQR total SB commitment of 30% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

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

{10%} Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) {5%} Woman-Owned SB (WOSB) {8%} Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB (SDVOSB) {2%} Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)

The extent to which proposed SB firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name in the SBCD (DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(C)). Firms must also be listed in the subcontracting plan that is incorporated into the contract award.

The extent of commitment to use the identified SB firms (enforceable and/or long- term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments). Copies of written commitments must be provided.

*Note: an enforceable and/or long-term commitment is a written and signed agreement (by the Prime and subcontractor) that details that all parties have agreed to a business relationship for the Solicitation. The document must clearly show that both parties have defined and agreed to the extent of the relationship, including the type or types of work that the subcontractors/partners shall perform and what areas of the contract they will cover. The agreement shall be specific in nature.

The complexity and variety of the work SB are proposed to perform (for example: work requiring specific certifications, i.e., welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc.) to expand competitive pool– particularly during major project phases like design, manufacturing, installation/testing and demolition/removal.

The extent of the Offeror’s past success in complying with and demonstrating good faith effort with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, FAR 19.704(a)(12) and 19.705-7 (eSRS and CPARS evaluations) https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart- 19.7#:~:text=19.705%2D7%20Compliance%20with%20the%20subcontracting%20plan

5.0 PRICE PROPOSAL:

Submission Requirements for Price Proposal:

Submit the properly filled out SF 1442, along with the completely filled out Price Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing. See instructions in Section 00 21 00, “INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Evaluation Method for Price Proposal:

The total price for the base items will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Price analysis will be conducted to determine if the overall price offered is fair and reasonable. The prices for the base items will also be checked for unbalancing of line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

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

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

6.0 TRADEOFF EVALUATION:

Selection will be made based on the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Solicitation requirements, demonstrates high capability and low risk, and presents the best value offer to the Government. An Offeror must have a Past Performance Confidence rating of Satisfactory Confidence or better to be eligible for award. If the Government does not receive an offer from a responsible Offeror rated with a Past Performance Confidence rating of Satisfactory or better, with a fair and reasonable price, no award will be made.

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS:

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

This information shall be submitted within Volume II.

Offerors are required to be registered in SAM at the time their offer is submitted in order to comply with annual representations and certifications. See FAR 4.1102 (a).

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

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

SECTION 00 22 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

PAST PERFORMANCE PROJECT FORM

PLEASE USE THIS FORM FOR EACH SUBMITTED PROJECT

(OFFEROR or KEY SUBCONTRACTOR) UNDER FACTOR 1, PAST PERFORMANCE

Note: A separate Word version of this document will be accessible in PIEE.

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

1. Name of Offeror (Or Key Subcontractor):

2. Project Title:

3. Contract/Project Number:

4. Project Owner and Location:

5. Total Contract Value (Final value): $

6. If submitting project performed by a JV, provide the DUNS number and Cage Code for each member:

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

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

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

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

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

12. Date 100% complete project turned over to Owner (Month/Day/Year): _______________________________

13. Name of Owner/Client POC:

14. Telephone Number of Owner/Client POC:

15. Email Address of Owner/Client POC:

16. General Scope of Construction Project:

17. Describe/demonstrate how the project is relevant to the RFP in the following areas, as defined in Factor 1:

(a) Complexity:

(b) Magnitude:

(c) Scope:

(d) Size:

SECTION 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT 2

THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

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

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

FORM.

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

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

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

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

(VG) Very Good

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

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

(S) Satisfactory

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

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

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

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

(U) Unsatisfactory

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________

Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?