W912DY-10-R-0004-0001.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

See page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Sep-2010

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 W912DY-10-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Aug-2010

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. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Sep-2010

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEERING & SUPPORT CENTER

CEHNC-CT

4820 UNIVERSITY SQUARE

HUNTSVILLE AL 35816-1822

W912DY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DY-10-R-0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to correct the following ambiguities:

A. The required response date/time has changed from 23-Sep-2010 03:00 PM to 01-Oct-2010 12:00 PM.

B. The 'issued by' organization has changed from

US ARMY ENGINEERING & SUPPORT CENTER

HUNTSVILLE ENGINEERING & SUPPORT CENTER

P.O. BOX 1600

HUNTSVILLE AL 35807-4301

to

US ARMY ENGINEERING & SUPPORT CENTER

CEHNC-CT

4820 UNIVERSITY SQUARE

HUNTSVILLE AL 35816-1822

C. SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS is hereby changed as indicated in RED

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

This solicitation is for the award of multiple award task order contracts (MATOCs) for Design-Build and

Construction of Medical Repair and Renewal (MRR) projects in CONUS. Individual projects under this contract will be awarded by task order. This solicitation may include an actual task order which may also be awarded.

General Description of Work: Perform design/build services for the MRR Program

1.1.1. Task Order

Reserved for Phase II.

1.2. CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The Contract Cost Limitation (CCL) may be provided with the Request for Proposals (RFPs) for individual requirements in Section 00 73 10. It is the Government's intent to award at full scope within the CCL or

Programmatic Amount (PA). Betterments shall only be provided in the Offeror's proposal if the price can be provided within or at the CCL or PA.

1.3. GOVERNMENT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror(s) must ensure that ALL mail sent to the US Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville

Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, either pre-contract or post-contract award, has a return mailing address on the outside of the envelope, package, box, etc. ANY MAIL addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, including but not limited to bids, modifications to bids, proposals, revised proposals, bonds, correspondence, etc., MAY BE REJECTED by the US Army Corps of Engineers located at 4820 University

Square, Huntsville, AL 35816-4301 if it does not contain a return mailing address.

1.4. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at: [www.fbo.gov W912DY-10-R-

0004]

It shall be the offeror’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the federal business opportunities web site (registration required) at: http://www.fbo.gov/ via Quick Search (Solicitation No.

W912DY-10-R-0004).

1.5. OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

1.5.1 Bidder Inquiry

1.5.1.1 Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via

Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

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

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

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

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

1.5.1.1.4 The Solicitation Number is : W912DY-10-R-0004

1.5.1.1.5 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: U6Z2QT-DS96HB

1.5.1.2 The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries beginning 22 September 2010 in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

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

1.5.1.4 The bidder inquiry call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone

(Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

1.5.1.5 Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Substantive information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

1.6. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

See Section 00 45 00, FAR 52.219-1 for the small business size standard/NAICS Code.

1.7. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

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

1.8. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: To Be Determined with each task order

1.9. ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1.10. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

Due to heightened security at Government installations, those offerors who have its proposals hand-delivered should contact Marcus Adams, Contract Specialist, at 256-895-1386 or Lisle E. Lennon, Contracting Officer, at 256-895-1554 or the Contracting Office Main Desk, at 256-895-1295, prior to delivering to the address shown below. On 1 October 2010 at 1200 hours a Government representative will be in the mail room, located on the north side of the building, to accept proposals. See FAR 52.215-1 for rules concerning late proposals.

As stated on Standard Form SF 1442: Proposals will be received until 12:00 CDTon 1 October 2010 at:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville Center

ATTN: Marcus D. Adams

US Army Engineering & Support Ctr, CEHNC-CT, 4820 University Square, Huntsville, AL 35807-4301

The Packaging that contains the Proposals shall be marked:

”Proposals for Solicitation Number: W912DY-10-R-0004, DO NOT OPEN”

1.11. PROPOSAL FORMAT

(a) Written materials: 8 ½” x 11” format, using 10 point or larger font size, in bound volumes, using 3-ring binders (except that Pro Forma material and price proposal, which shall be submitted in a closed manila envelope). Each bound volume will contain a Title Sheet on the cover for ready identification of the proposal and a full table of contents, separated by Tabs, as prescribed herein

(i) The prime, consortium, or joint venture’s name, address, a signature of the official that can bind the firm and a telephone number shall appear in the lower left corner of the title page of any document/volume to be evaluated.

(ii) Volume number, section, page numbers, and date submitted shall appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number for the amended page, if necessary).

(b) Drawing sheets: Use 22” x 34” for full size drawings. Half-size sheets are also acceptable.

(c) Electronic Format: Provide six (6) CDs in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Excel format (including formulas).

(d) Number of copies: Submit one original and six (6) copies of drawings and printed matter (Bound

Volumes), as well as the six (6) CDs directed in paragraph 1.11 (c). For Pro Forma information required in

Phase 2: Submit the original and two copies and two separate CDs.

(e) Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms.

1.12. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a) joint venture, the offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124 and 13 CFR Part 126, respectively. 8(a) Joint Venture

Offerors shall state that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed Joint Venture for this specific

RFP with the appropriate SBA representative or Business Opportunity Specialist.

1.13. SUBCONTRACTING GOALS REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERNS

(a) Application. This clause applies to all offerors submitting proposals.

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Attention is directed to the following FAR and DFARS provisions contained in this solicitation:

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Alternate I)

252.226-7001, Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native

Hawaiian Small Business Concerns

(b) Goals. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the following goals reasonable and achievable for the performance of the resultant contract:

(c) 70.00% of subcontracted amount contract amount with small business concerns.

(d) 6.2% of subcontracted amount contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

(e) 7.0% of subcontracted amount contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by women.

(f) 9.8% of subcontracted amount contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans.

(g) 3.5% of subcontracted amount contract amount with those small business concerns owned and controlled by HUBZones.

(h) 2.00% of subcontracted amount contract amount with those minority institutions and historically black colleges and universities

1.14. BID GUARANTEE

A Bid Guarantee will be required for the initial Task Order in Phase 2. The penal sum of the bond will be required as in provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. Facsimile Bonds are not acceptable.

1.15. CONTRACT PRICES - BIDDING SCHEDULE (PHASE 2 ONLY)

Payment for the various items listed in the Bidding Schedule shall constitute full compensation for furnishing all plant, labor, equipment, appliances, materials and bonds (performance and payment), and for performing all operations required to complete the work in conformity with the scope of work, task order, basic contract, and drawings and specifications. All costs for work not specifically mentioned in the Bidding Schedule shall be included in the contract prices for the items listed.

See DFARS 252.236-7008. However, include the cost for performance and payment bond.

1.16 ORDERING PROCEDURES

In making the determination on appropriateness of the competition pool to compete for the task order award, the Government will consider: 1) capability of the contractors to perform at the level of complexity required for successful completion of the task: 2) past performance of contractors in the pool on earlier orders under the contract, including quality, timeliness, and cost control; 3) potential impact on other orders placed with the contractors in the pool; and 4) minimal order requirements.

Once the competition pool has been selected, task orders will be awarded against the basic ID/IQ contracts utilizing the fair opportunity procedures discussed in FAR 16.5 in addition to the competitive source selection procedures identified in Section 863 of Public Law 110-417and implemented in DFARS

216.505-70.

Each order exceeding $100,000 will be awarded on a competitive basis in accordance with DFARS

216.505-70 (c), unless an exception described in FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) through (iv) or DFARS 216.505-

70(b)(1) applies. The unique selection criteria for each task order award will be provided in the task order request for proposal. However, the typical evaluation criteria utilized at the task order level may include the following: 1) technical approach, 2) schedule, 3) past performance, and 4) price/price related factors, and others as determined necessary. The evaluation will be provided in strict accordance with the selection criteria identified in the request for proposal documents and documented in accordance with local policy and procedures.

1.17 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation are subject to the organizational and consultant conflicts of interest rules identified in FAR 9.5. There may be circumstances resulting in the performance of work under the prospective contracts which create an actual or potential conflict of interest on a contract or the nature of the work to be performed on the contract(s) creates an actual or potential conflict of interest on a future acquisition. See clause, “Organizational Conflicts of Interest” in Section 00 73 00 for requirements pertaining to this acquisition.

1.18. SOLICITIATION PROVISIONS

D. SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES is hereby changed as indicated in RED

SECTION 00 22 10 (ID/IQ)

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE MEDICAL EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL & MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.2 EVALUATION

9.3 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.4 DEFINITIONS

9.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE –PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE –KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

4 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

5 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR DESIGN FIRM

6 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

7 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

7b – KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule in executing task orders to meet the

Army’s goal of faster project execution at lower cost, while taking advantage of industry standards, means and methods. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as ”Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating its capability to successfully execute design-build or construction task orders under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described in

Section, 00 22 10 and will short-list a target of six (6) of the Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the base ID/IQ contract award and for the initial task order award in Phase 2. However, the Government reserves the right to include less, more, or no offerors at all.

1.2. In Phase 2, the short-listed offerors will submit proposals for the initial task order in accordance with

Section 00 22 20. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a target of four (4) firm fixed-price

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts to those firms whose proposals offer the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2. The Government reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all. One of the Phase 2 contract awardees will be awarded the initial task order in accordance with the Phase 2 evaluation and award procedures.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized

Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the Offeror’s design entity is required to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and the requirements specified in Section 00 72 00, FAR 52.236-225 ”Requirements for Registration of Designers”, must be met.

All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2. Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits stated in specific paragraphs. PHASE 1 DOES NOT INVOLVE

PRICING SUBMISSION. All information shall be confined to the appropriate Tab. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location

Factor

Number

Description

Relative Importance

Tab A SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet

N/A

Tab B Factor 1 Corporate Medical Experience 1st (Most Important Factor)

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

Tab D Factor 3 Organizational and

Management/Technical Approach

3rd (Slightly less important than Factor 2)

Tab E Factor 4

Evidence of Bondability The Factor is Go or No-Go.

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section).

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE MEDICAL EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 Specialized medical facility repair renewal experience includes work experience relevant to medical facilities and unique medical facility requirements, for example, infection control, interim life safety measures, Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), The Joint

Commission (TJC), and United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) 797. This would include:

Design/Renewal/Construction of medical facilities, for example, hospitals, dental clinics, ambulatory surgery clinics, pharmacies, veterinary clinics, medical research laboratories, medical repositories, and biosafety laboratories. The offeror shall submit up to ten (10) projects that demonstrate the depth and breadth of corporate medical experience within the offeror’s organization, using attachments 2 and 3 found at the end of this section. Projects must be 100% construction complete, within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. The offeror shall annotate the organization’s role in the project and the specialized medical experience required, gained, applied to each specific project.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Experience will include only experience performed by a company, not individuals, under a contract or a subcontract. Experience considered may include both government and private sector contracts in providing the same or similar products and services as described in the Division 01 Specifications of this solicitation, and the capability to provide such products and services under a similar size and type of contract. Only experience performed within the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation will be considered. For key subcontractor’s and design firm’s experience to be considered, offerors shall include letters of commitment from that firm (see attachments 5 and 6 at the end of this section), unconditionally committing the subcontractor to performance under this contract should it be awarded to the offeror. Experience of the prime offeror may carry more weight in the evaluation process than experience of key subcontractors. Prior experience of the proposed team on other similar efforts should be discussed and will be evaluated under this factor.

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. Past performance refers to the quality of recent relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective. The offeror shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current phone numbers on the specific relevant project experience sheets in Tab B using projects submitted for evaluation on Factor 1- Corporate Medical Experience. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. Projects must be

100% construction complete, within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. See the sample questionnaire shown at Attachment

4. The Offeror or the design firm may briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified projects and any corrective action. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects the Government may consider relevant information from any reliable source.

6.1.2. The prime contractor shall provide information showing a track record of compliance with FAR

52.219-8, including information on both maximizing opportunities for small business concerns and ensuring timely payment to small business subcontractors.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. The Government will perform a risk assessment with respect to Past Performance. The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer, unless the proposal indicates that the offeror will be using the resources of the affiliated organizations. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the

Past Performance Evaluation – Telephone Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the

Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government may release the substance of the information, but will not release the identity of the interviewee. The Government places a higher value on relevant performance, which document successful outcomes within occupied medical facilities, and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on relevant performance, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government also places a higher value on relevant performance, where projects displaying familiarity and compliance with DoD, US Army and the US Army Corps of Engineers regulations, policies and procedures with respect to medical construction is demonstrated. The Government also places a higher value on relevant performance, where projects were completed on time, within budget, and meeting project objectives/milestones. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

6.2.2. The Government will evaluate the past performance of each entity (firm) of the offeror, as defind on page 3. However, the results will then be assessed in totality to derive the offeror’s Past

Performance rating. Each offeror entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance, and may be rated on that of its predecessor, if relevant. An offeror entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the offeror entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance risk will be considered “unknown”.

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 - ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1. The offeror should describe the proposed organizational structure and provide an organizational chart showing functional areas and personnel responsible for executing each function required in the Division 01

Specifications. Include the total number of personnel by discipline available to staff the requirements of this acquisition. In describing the program organization, the offeror should include the responsibilities and lines of authority; the relationship between the prime contractor and key subcontractors. The offeror should briefly address and indicate which member(s) of the team (both from a corporate perspective and from a personnel perspective) will execute the efforts identified in the Division 01 Specifications. The offeror shall identify and provide resumes (see attachment 7b at the end of this section) for all of the key personnel identified below and include letters of commitment (see attachment 7 at the end of this section) from individual key personnel not currently employed by the offeror. Limit the information to twenty five (25) pages or less.

Clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution, including the approach to managing multiple projects in multiple locations. The twenty five (25) page limit does not include submitted resumes or letters of commitment.

7.1.1.1. Program Manager – This is the individual who has the direct responsibility for the Contractor’s entire medical facility repair and renewal program. This individual shall serve as the single point of contact and liaison between the Contracting Officer and the Contractor. The Program Manager should have a recognized four-year college degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management with a minimum of ten years experience managing engineering and medical repair/renewal type projects and at least five years in a supervisory position. The Program Manager should be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to medical facility and facility repair/renewal tasks covered in the Division 01

Specifications. NOTE: Offerors should consider one year equivalent to a period of 12 consecutive months.

7.1.1.2. Architect/Engineers – The lead registered architect/engineer or hygienist in each major discipline shall be identified. These individuals shall provide professional architectural/engineering services. Registered professional engineers, architects and hygienists shall be available to certify projects involving life safety and/or fire protection and to certify proper use of codes and standards. Project

Engineer(s) and Project Architect(s) should have a recognized four-year degree in engineering or architecture and should be a registered professional engineer. Project Engineers/Architects should have ten years experience in engineering, design and design review of medical facilities and repair/renewal projects.

Architectural, engineering, and industrial hygienists should have a recognized four-year degree in engineering or related field and have at least three years of design, design review, and engineering or service experience

(in unique discipline) in medical facilities and repair/renewal projects. NOTE: Offerors should consider one year equivalent to a period of 12 consecutive months.

7.1.1.3. Contract Administrator – This individual shall have direct responsibility for Contract Administration.

The Contract Administrator should have five years experience and should have experience in medical repair and renewal type projects. The Contract Administrator should be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to medical facility and facility repair/renewal tasks covered in the Division 01

Specifications. NOTE: Offerors should consider one year equivalent to a period of 12 consecutive months.

7.1.1.4. Safety Engineer – This individual shall have direct responsibility for the Safety Program. The Safety

Engineer should have five years experience and should have experience in medical repair and renewal type projects. The Safety Engineer should be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to medical facility and facility repair/renewal tasks covered in the Division 01 Specifications.

NOTE: Offerors should consider one year equivalent to a period of 12 consecutive months.

7.1.2. Organization: Describe the offeror, it’s resources, how its resources will be utilized, and its roles and responsibilities. Include a general description of the work the prime offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of the Special Contract Requirement SCR 1.4, SELF-PERFORMANCE OF WORK

BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR applicable to this solicitation (See Section 00 73 00). 8(a) Joint Venture

Offerors shall state that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed Joint Venture for this specific

RFP with the appropriate SBA representative or Business Opportunity Specialist.

7.1.3. Management/Technical Approach

7.1.3.1 Management/Technical Approach for Design-Build: Describe the collaborative management and technical approach to design and build medical type facilities. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design and the role of the construction team members during design.

Include information on fast-tracking design and construction. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule. (In Phase 2, the Offeror will describe merging its fast-track packaging into the proposal schedule and contract duration) The offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the work by describing its technical/management approach to execute task orders ensuring that the requirements identified in the Division 01 specifications are addressed. The offeror should separate its discussion into the following categories:

overall program management contract administration project management risk management subcontracting

7.1.3.2 Management/Technical Approach for Construction Only: The Government may also issue task orders under the anticipated contracts for the Contractor to provide stand alone construction, repair, renewal, replacement, or maintenance efforts without the provision of the associated A-E services. Describe the collaborative management and technical approach to the construction of medical type facilities. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers and the role of the design team members during construction. The offeror shall identify how it would approach the construction work requirements differently from the design/build approach presented in response to paragraph 7.1.3.1 assuming that the Government will provide the completed work plan/design and specifications and not the Contractor. The offeror should separate its discussion in a similar fashion to the design/build approach provided in response to paragraph

7.1.3.1.

7.1.4. Planning and Scheduling: Provide information on your team’s project scheduling capabilities for design and construction. Identify the system you will utilize and how your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. In Phase 2, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

7.1.5. Quality Control: Provide information on your team’s capabilities to implement and execute quality control. Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker

Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the organizational management/technical approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of design-build, construction only, and the capability to execute the project. The offeror’s design build approach will be weighted more heavily than construction only approach. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below.

7.2.2. Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure, key personnel, and total staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The prime contractor is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with its skills and background. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability and intent to comply with the applicable requirements for self-performance of work by the prime contractor, as applicable to the type of solicitation (See Section 00 73 00, SCR .1.4, “SELF-PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR”)

7.2.3. Management/Technical Approach:

7.2.3.1. Management/Technical Approach for Design Build:

The Government will evaluate the offerors technical/management approach as it relates to the Design/Build environment. The offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the work by describing its approach to execute task orders. The offeror shall ensure that the requirements identified in the Division 01 specifications are addressed. The offeror should separate its discussion into the following categories:

overall program management contract administration project management risk management subcontracting

Specifically, offerors should address in its technical approach: the reason behind the approach focusing on how the approach will provide a timely, quality product in an efficient manner; how the members of the team will execute each phase; when and for what type of work will design engineers be utilized; why the proposed approach to execution of the remediation effort (in-house, subcontracted, etc.) will provide a timely quality product in an efficient and cost effective manner, and the offerors proposed collaborative management and technical approach to design and build projects.

The offeror should approach this description from a corporate perspective of how the firm approaches work and to a lesser extent the mechanics of the effort.

7.2.3.2. Management/Technical Approach for Construction Only:

The Government may also issue task orders under the anticipated contracts for the Contractor to provide stand alone construction, repair, renewal, replacement, or maintenance efforts without the provision of the associated A-E services. As a result, the Government will evaluate the offerors technical approach to the construction effort without the provision of the associated A-E services. The offeror shall describe its approach to execute task orders which require the Contractor to execute construction, repair, renewal, replacement, or maintenance efforts without the provision of the associated A-E services. The offeror should not reiterate duplicative information provided in response to Paragraph 7.1.3.1 – Management/Technical

Approach for Design-Build

7.2.4. Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling capabilities to develop and implement an integrated fast track design-build schedule and the systems that will be utilized to execute the schedule.

7.2.5. Self-Performed Work: The Government will evaluate the proposed prime offeror’s resources to determine if it has the capability to self-perform the required amount of the project, in accordance with public policy to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work. These requirements are outlined in Section

00 73 00.

7.2.6. Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction.

8.0. TAB E – FACTOR 4 EVIDENCE OF BONDABILITY

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors are required to submit proof of its ability to obtain performance and payment bonds attesting to the offeror’s ability to provide assurance for not less than $5,000,000 per task order and $20,000,000.00 aggregate. Performance and payment bonds must be supported by an acceptable surety as defined in DFARS

252.228-7004(c). Proof must be provided by a financial institution rated investment grade by Moody’s

Investors Service. A letter of commitment from the surety will provide acceptable proof of the offeror’s ability to obtain adequate assurance.

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

This factor will be evaluated as a Go/No Go factor. Offerors who have provided evidence of surety will receive a rating of Go. The offerors who did not submit evidence of a surety will receive a No Go rating and will not be eligible for contract award.

9.0. PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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

9.2. EVALUATION

9.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth its best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine its performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to revise its proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

9.2.2. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly rated Offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

9.3. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.3.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The

SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

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

9.3.3. Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, “Susceptible to Being Made

Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor except past performance which includes an adjectival rating for risk, which reflect the Government’s confidence in each Offeror’s technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

9.4. DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

9.4.6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission or mistake. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

9.4.7. Outstanding. The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach/experience which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach/experience includes numerous strengths or significant strengths and essentially no weaknesses, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The proposal contains no deficiencies.

9.4.8. Good. The proposal demonstrates a sound approach/experience which meets all requirements and objectives. This sound approach/experience includes strengths or significant strengths, and few relatively minor weaknesses (if any), which collectively can be expected to result in above average performance. The proposal contains no deficiencies.

9.4.9. Acceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach/experience which meets all requirements and objectives. The approach/experience might include strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, where the strengths and significant strengths are not outweighed by the weaknesses and significant weaknesses. Collectively, the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses are likely to result in acceptable performance. The proposal contains no deficiencies.

9.4.10. Marginal. The proposal demonstrates an approach/experience which does not meet all requirements and objectives. The approach/experience contains weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies.

Any strengths or significant strengths that may exist are outweighed by the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Collectively, the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies are likely to result in less than acceptable performance.

9.4.11. Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach/experience which, as initially proposed, cannot be rated Acceptable or above because of one or more deficiencies which are readily resolvable, and if resolved would necessarily result in a higher rating than Marginal.

Note: A susceptible rating cannot be a final rating. The final rating will either decrease to a rating of

Marginal or Unacceptable, or if deficiencies are corrected, increase to a rating of acceptable or better.

9.4.12. Unacceptable. The proposal demonstrates an approach/experience which has extensive issues meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach contains numerous/experience contains numerous weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies which are not readily resolvable. If strengths or significant strengths exist, they are far outweighed by weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Collectively, the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies are likely to result in highly unsatisfactory performance.

9.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

9.5.1 In place of adjectival ratings, risk ratings shall be assigned to Past Performance. Past Performance Risk

Ratings assess the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP.

Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for these factors:

9.5.2. Risk Rating System

9.5.2.1. Unknown Risk. Offeror has no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no positive or negative evaluation significance.

9.5.2.2. Low Risk. Little doubt exists, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

9.5.2.3. Moderate Risk. Some doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record, that the Offeror can successfully perform the proposed effort.

9.5.2.4. High Risk. Significant doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record, that the Offeror can successfully perform the proposed effort.

E. ATTACHMENT 7 of SECTION 00 22 10 is hereby changed as indicated in RED

LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY PERSONNEL

(USE COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 7

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for ____________________

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Proposer), that I, (insert name of key personnel), will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project)

Sincerely, Title of Official

Date: __________

F. ATTACHMENT 7B of SECTION 00 22 10 is hereby added as written below

ATTACHMENT 7B

KEY PERSONNEL RESUME

SECTION 00 22 20 - ATTACHMENT 7b

Provide information, listed below, on separate sheets showing qualifications of offerors. Use a continuation sheet, if needed. NOTE: Match the positions on this page to the list of key personnel in the narrative submission requirements and evaluation criteria.

(a) Your Name and Title ______________________________________________________________________

(a) Your Assignment on this Project _____________________________________________________________

(b) Name of Your Firm _______________________________________________________________________

(c) No. of Years: With this Firm__________ With other Firms____________

(d) Education: Degree(s)/Year/Specialization

(e) Active Registration, if any: No._______, State(s) ______, First Year/ Current Year ______/______

(…