Draft_MFAES_3.0_Synopsis__4_Feb_19.pdf

C - Medical A/E Services for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center

General Information

Document type: Solicitation Solicitation Number: W912DY-18-R-0008 Posting Date: TDB Reponses Date: TBD Response Time: 3:00 PM Central Standard Time (CST) Archive Date: TBD NAICS code: 541330, Engineering Services Product Service Code (PSC): C211- Architect & Engineering Services - General

CONTRACTING OFFICE ADDRESS. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Huntsville, P.O. Box 1600, Huntsville, AL 35807-4301

CONTRACT INFORMATION. This is not a Request for Price Proposal (RFPP). This is a request for a Capability Statement. This procurement is for Medical Architect & Engineering (MFAES) services and will be procured in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.6, A/E Services procedures and Selection of A/E Statute (SAES).

USACE, Huntsville Center (CEHNC) intends to procure at least three Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) awards. The government’s goal is up to six IDC awards (three in a small business reserve and three in an unrestricted pool).

Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed-price orders. The Period of Performance (POP) is a base period of three (3) years and one (1) option period of two (2) years, for a total of five (5) years. The Government s minimum obligation shall not exceed the minimum guarantee of $2,500.00 for the life of each contract.

The main activities that comprise the source selection process for this Architect & Engineering

A/E IDC:

1. Public Announcement.

2. Receipt of SF330 Data.

3. Conduct Pre-Selection Evaluation Board (if needed).

4. Conduct Selection Evaluation Board.

5. Approval of Selections.

6. Issuance, Evaluation, and Negotiation of Price Proposals (Request for Price Proposal).

7. Preparation of Contract Award Documents.

After the evaluation of qualifications has taken place and a determination of the most highly qualified firms, the government will issue a request for pricing proposal (RFPP) for review and negotiate as needed for an award. If negotiations are not successful with a particular A/E firm, negotiations will be conducted with the next most highly qualified firm, and so on, until the anticipated number of A/E IDCS are awarded.

The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

No additional project information will be given to firms during the announcement period.

I. PROJECT INFORMATION.

The A/E Firm will be required to provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, and supervision to perform medical architecture, engineering, and planning services related to Department of Defense healthcare facilities and medical laboratories. These medical A/E services include: A/E design services; technical support; engineering surveys and assessments; engineering studies; facility planning; commissioning; construction phase services;

full medical facility design; medical facility design-build request for proposal development;

medical facility planning; engineering studies; criteria development; technical review assistance;

construction phase services support; and commissioning support.

Upon award of a Task Order (TO), A/E Firms shall perform the specific tasks, requirements, within the Period of Performance (POP) unique to each individual TO.

It is critical that the A/E Firm possess extensive experience related to services described above and comply with mandatory Federal, State, and military regulations and standards.

LOCATION. This work will occur in the United States and its Territories, Afghanistan, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.

The A-E Firm shall adhere to safe work practices and to local safety rules for each site. Prior to the performance of any work on site, the A-E Firm shall prepare, submit, and will have obtained approval on the appropriate type of Accident Prevention Plan as specified in each task order.

These plans are to be prepared and executed in accordance with the EM 385-1-1 as appropriate.

II. SELECTION CRITERIA. The source selection process for this acquisition will evaluate the following primary selection criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance.

Criteria 1, 2, 4-7 will be evaluated using the adjectival rating methodology listed below:

PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria Description Criteria 1 Specialized Experience & Technical Competence Criteria 2 Professional Qualifications Criteria 3 Past Performance Criteria 4 Capacity Criteria 5 Knowledge of Locality

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Adjective Description

Outstanding

Submission meets requirements and indicates exceptional qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Submission meets requirements and indicates thorough qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Submission contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Submission meets requirements and indicates adequate qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Submission does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. The submission has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Submission does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Submission is un-awardable.

A. Criteria 1: Specialized Experience & Technical Competence

A.1 Firms shall submit key projects that demonstrate the proposed team’s recent and relevant experience as follows. A project is defined as efforts leading to the completion of a specific requirement. Multiple projects performed under a multiple-award contract that are submitted as a key project will be disqualified from further evaluation. Each project will be submitted using one SF330 Part I, Section F form per project:

(a) Firms proposing as an unrestricted business must submit three (3) projects (no more/no less) where the firm developed design documents for a medical clinic, dental clinic, hospital, veterinary clinic, or medical laboratory. Firms proposing as a small business must submit 2-3 projects in this category. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, only the first three will be evaluated. The proposal must clearly identify projects submitted in this category as a “Design Project” on the project form. (Otherwise, the evaluation board will make a determination for which category the key project was submitted.)

(b) Firms proposing as an unrestricted business must submit three (3) projects (no more/no less) where the firm has performed healthcare facility planning, installation master planning, and/or regional planning. Firms proposing as a small business must submit 2-3 projects in this category. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, only the first three will be evaluated. The proposal must identify projects submitted in this category as a “Planning Project” on the project form. (Otherwise, the evaluation board will make a determination for which category the key project was submitted.)

(c) Firms proposing as an unrestricted business must submit one to four (1-4) projects that demonstrate specialized experience & technical competence in one or more other key scope categories related to healthcare facilities. These may include: Renewal of unified guide specification templates; engineering studies assessments, or surveys, construction phase services, commissioning services, or original research. Firms proposing as a small business must submit 1-2 projects in this category. If more than projects than the maximum number (above) are submitted, only the maximum number will be evaluated.

The proposal must identify projects submitted in this category as a “Special Project” on the project form. (Otherwise, the evaluation board will make a determination for which category the key project was submitted.)

A.2 Key projects may be performed by the prime contractor A-E Firm, joint-venture partners, or key subcontractors that are being proposed as team members on this proposal. In Section A, the offeror must expressly state that key subcontractors being proposed as team members will perform at least 20% of the overall effort across all task orders awarded on this contract. The offeror must provide a sufficient amount of information to allow for a clear evaluation of the items listed below. A summary of the overall project may be submitted, however, the material must be clear to indicate the specific work that the proposing team directly performed for each project.

A.3 A key Design Project will only be considered recent if the design product has been completed within the last five (5) years and led to a construction project which is no less than 50% complete at the time of the release of this synopsis. Other submitted key projects (Planning Projects or Special Projects) will only be considered recent if the product was submitted and accepted within the last five (5) years leading up to the proposal due date of this acquisition.

Otherwise, the key project will NOT be considered recent and will be eliminated from further evaluation.

A.4 Relevancy of key projects will be evaluated in terms of: Facility Type, Depth of Involvement, Construction Project Complexity, Customer, and Product Type. Projects with a greater relevance will be evaluated higher than those with lesser relevance. The weight of each non-critical sub-criterion are of equal importance to one another.

• Facility Type: Healthcare facilities must include medical clinics, dental clinics, hospitals, veterinary clinics, or medical laboratories. If not obvious, the proposal must explain the relationship of the project to one of these facility types. If a key project is not associated with one or more of these types of facilities it will NOT be considered relevant and will be disqualified from further evaluation.

• Project Complexity: Large, complex projects will be more relevant than smaller, less complex projects. Design of new facilities or major additions will be considered more relevant than the design of smaller additions, alterations, or renovations of existing facilities.

• Depth of Involvement: A firm that has been directly involved in in a greater number of critical disciplines on the project will be considered more relevant than if the firm has been involved in fewer critical disciplines on the project.

• Customer: DoD healthcare projects will be considered significantly more relevant than other federal healthcare or non-federal healthcare projects. If a project is not associated with one of these three customer types, the project will not be considered relevant and will be

• Project Types: For key Design Projects, relevant product types could include full designs, partial design/bridging documents, or the development of RFP documents (in descending order of importance). For key Planning Projects, healthcare facility planning will be considered more relevant than installation master planning or regional planning. For key Special Projects, diversity among the types of projects submitted will be considered more relevant than having similar projects. If a project does not qualify as any of these types of work products (as described above), it will NOT be considered relevant and will be

B. Criteria 2: Professional Qualifications

B.1 The submitting A/E firm shall provide a Certificate of Authorization, an equivalent certification, or (otherwise) a letter explaining why the firm may, by law, practice architecture and/or engineering in at least one state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States as required by FAR 36.601-4(b). If the firm has not provided sufficient authorization documents or justification as requested, the firm will be disqualified for further consideration. This information should be provided after SF330 Part I, Section H.

B.2 Evaluation of Key Personnel: Using SF330 Part I, Section E, the firm must submit one resume for each of the following key personnel. Each field in the resume form should be filled out (or otherwise indicate that the field is not applicable). Resumes for the following key personnel shall be included:

1. Lead Program Manager

2. Lead Project Manager

3. Lead Architect

4. Lead Mechanical Engineer

5. Lead Electrical Engineer

6. Lead Civil Engineer

7. Lead Structural Engineer

8. Lead Environmental Engineer

9. Lead Fire Protection Engineer

10. Lead Communications Systems Professional

11. Lead Medical Facility Planner

12. Lead Urban Planner

B.3 Each key person may not necessarily develop the work products required in each task order but will be directly responsible for overseeing any work associated with their discipline under this IDC. While allowable, it is requested that the firm not submit any resumes for other positions beyond what is being requested. (If necessary, please indicate additional personnel in the organization chart without a resume.) Multiple personnel shall not be submitted for a single key personnel position. Dual-hatting of key personnel positions is not allowed. Each key engineer must be a registered Professional Engineer in at least one U.S. state or territory. Each key architect must be a Registered Architect in at least one U.S. state or territory. The Lead Communications Systems Professional must have attained the Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) credential. The Lead PgM, Lead PM, Lead Medical Facility Planner, and Lead Urban Planner do not require professional registration or certification.

If the firm has not provided sufficient authorization documents or justification as requested, the firm will be disqualified for further consideration.

B.4 If the firm has not provided a resume for each of the required key disciplines the proposal will be considered non-responsive and will be rated unsatisfactory for this criteria. The Government will evaluate the relevant experience and required credentials of each person submitted for each key person. Experience will be evaluated in terms of:

(a) Their possession of a required professional credential (as described above) and the possession of other relevant, non-required credentials or education. The lack of a PE, RA, or RCDD credential for any key discipline that requires it will constitute an unacceptable rating for this criteria.

(b) The longevity of their work experience of their having performed relevant work on relevant projects.

(c) The relevancy of the overall portfolio of projects that they have worked (in terms of facility type, complexity, customer, and project type defined above).

(d) Any specialized skills or experience that the Government believes to be valuable.

B.5 Evaluation of Key Project Teaming Experience: The firm shall submit a matrix that demonstrates each key person and any key projects that they have participated in using SF330 Part I, Section G. A higher rating will be given to those matrices demonstrating teams where a greater percentage of its members have worked together on more key projects among the same types of projects (design, planning, or special).

B.6 Evaluation of the Organization Chart: The firm shall submit an organization chart of the proposed team that clearly demonstrates the team and organizational relationships among key personnel, delineates responsibility, and identifies for which firm each person directly works.

This org chart may not exceed one page and will use SF330 Part I, Section D. The organization chart will be evaluated for potential performance risks or opportunities related to organizational structure.

C. Criteria 3: Past Performance

Past Performance will be evaluated primarily upon official information available about the key projects that have been submitted under the Specialized Experience & Technical Competence criteria.

C.1 For key projects performed for the U.S. Federal Government submitted under Criteria 1, the A/E Firm shall provide a copy of the final signed performance evaluation from the A/E Firm Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). For non-Federal Government key projects submitted under Criteria 1, the A/E Firm shall solicit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to be completed by a customer representative (ultimate owner) who was directly involved in the oversight of the firm’s work. These questionnaires must include instructions to send the responses directly to the Contracting Officer responsible for this acquisition.

C.2 The government reserves the right to evaluate past performance evaluation information from any other relevant sources for recent and relevant projects performed by the prime A/E Firm, key sub-contractors and joint venture partners. The Government may elect to consider any credible and reliable information obtained from other sources. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from the PPQ or other sources, the firm will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment.

C.3 A firm’s overall past performance will be evaluated from the degree of confidence that the Government anticipates the A/E Firm will perform successfully based on the information provided. Additionally, the confidence ratings will be adjusted based on the relevance of the projects.

A Limited or No Confidence rating for one or more evaluations will weigh more heavily than higher past performance ratings for this criteria.

C.4 Past performance submitted must match the recency requirements described under Criteria 1 to be considered relevant. The evaluation will use four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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.

Past Performance will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

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

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

C.5 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ included in the solicitation (Attachment 1) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project (that does not have a CPARS) the Offeror submitted in Criteria 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the solicitation closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to Email Address TBD prior to the solicitation closing date. The solicitation number and offeror’s name shall be clearly indicated on the PPQ. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

C.6 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offerors proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. The Government shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

C.7 The offeror shall include a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The POC List shall be submitted in MS Word Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date.

PPQ POC List Template

Solicitation # Company Contract # Agency Last Name

First Name Title Phone Email Date

D. Criteria 4: Capacity

The firm shall provide a logical narrative explanation (with charts or other aids as necessary) to analytically demonstrate their capacity to perform the following additional workload above and beyond other work projected to be performed during the period of performance of this IDC. This information should be provided in SF330 Part I, Section H.

For firms proposing as unrestricted businesses, provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of two (2) relevant task orders with a total combined fee of $1.5M over a 6-month period.

For firms proposing as small businesses, provide specific details on your current and projected capacity to perform the ADDITIONAL workload of two (2) relevant task orders with a total combined fee of $500K over a 6-month period.

More consideration will be given to firms who can effectively demonstrate a greater capacity to effectively handle additional workload relative to their present workload.

E. Criteria 5: Knowledge of Locality

The firm shall provide a logical narrative explanation (with charts or other aids as necessary) to demonstrate their familiarity and capability of working in multiple geographic locations. This information will be provided in SF330 Part I, Section H. Greater consideration will be given to firms with the experience and capability of performing work in diverse locations rather than only in fewer geographic areas due to the geographical diversity anticipated of the task order requirements.

F. SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA

If two or more firms are technically equal, the secondary criteria will be used as “tie-breakers” and the final ranking of firms decided. The following table shows secondary criteria in descending order of importance includes:

Criteria Description Criteria 6 Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Criteria 7 Geographic Proximity

G. Criteria 6: Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation

The government will evaluate the extent of participation of small businesses (including women-owned), small disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total estimated effort, regardless of whether the SB, SDB, HBCU or MI is a prime Firm, subcontractor, or joint venture partner. For firms proposing as large (unrestricted) businesses, greater consideration will be given to firms who propose greater participation by SB and SDBs.

For firms proposing as large (unrestricted) businesses this information will be obtained from their Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Small Businesses submitting as the prime A/E will automatically be given the highest level of consideration for this criteria. All firms shall complete and submit the Small Business Participation Plan attached to the announcement. The small business participation targets for this acquisition are listed below.

Small Business Category % of Total Acquisition Value Small Business (SB) 22% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 10% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% HUBZone Small Business (HUBzone) 3% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 4% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3%

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) N/A* Minority Institutions (MI) N/A*

*A-E firms are encouraged to support these programs. The prime A-E firm will receive no strengths or weaknesses for the HBCU/MI programs.

The following clauses will be incorporated into the resultant contracts:

a) FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns – the small business utilization evaluations information will be housed within the official contract file.

b) FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan - Large businesses will be required to provide an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan. In addition, the large business prime contractors will be required to submit a semi-annual eSRS report to ensure approved subcontracting goals are being met. During the evaluation phase and before task order issuance eSRS and CPARS data will be reviewed to ensure compliance with prior subcontracting goals.

c) FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages- Subcontracting Plan -Pursuant to FAR 19.705- 7(b), Liquidated Damages will be assessed in the amount of damages attributable to the contractor’s failure to comply in the amount equal to the actual dollar amount by which the contractor failed to achieve each subcontract goal. The Contracting Officer shall report a failure to comply with the subcontracting plan in the monthly CPARS report to allow the contractor an opportunity to explain their failure to comply. Further, eSRS quarterly reports will be required from each contractor, until it is clear that they are on track to meeting their subcontracting goals.

d) FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting - small businesses shall adhere to this clause. If an other-than small business is anticipated to receive contract award under these IDC suites, an acceptable subcontracting plan must be submitted prior to award of the basic contract, which will be incorporated into the contract and set forth an agreement that various small business types concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of the contract.

H. Criteria 7: Geographic Proximity

The firms will indicate, in SF330 Part I, Section H, the location of the office from which they will primarily interact with the U.S. Government.

Greater consideration will be given to prime A/E firms with their program office in closer proximity to the USACE, Huntsville, Alabama.

III. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. Interested parties are to submit a SF330 (see Engineering Pamphlet 715-1-4) for the government’s review (see Engineering Pamphlet (EP 715-1-4) for instructions on completing your submission.

SF330’s and supporting information shall be submitted in 3-ring binder(s) and within each binder a copy on a compact disk (CD) ROM or Digital Video Disc (DVD) ROM.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the CD/DVD ROM and all files contained therein are readable, searchable, complete, and accessible without a password requirement.

The digital files shall be provided in a one word searchable PDF formatted file. If the electronic copy and hard copy of the submission differ, the hard copy will govern. Zip disks are not permitted.

Each disc should be externally labeled with the volume(s) number(s), date, solicitation number and the Offeror’s name. Self-extracting .exe files are prohibited.

SF330 Part I shall not exceed 50 pages (8.5” X 11”), each side of the sheet of paper is considered one page, and shall not be less than a 10 point font. Firms may use no smaller than 10 point font on organizational charts, graphs, tables and matrices. Charts, graphs, etc., may have only that amount of text to explain the item and shall not contain excessive text that circumvents the page and font limits. Pages that violate these limits will be removed from the submittal and will not be evaluated. Cover letters, table of contents, letters of commitments, section tabs, abbreviation/acronym pages, the Small Business Participation Plan, back cover pages, the Certificate/Explanation of Authorization, PPQs, and Part II of the SF 330 will not be counted in the fifty (50) page limit. Include the prime A/E firm’s DUNS number and email address of the point of contact in Part I, Section H. in the SF 330, Part I, Section H. In Section H, indicate the estimated percentage of involvement of each firm (prime, key subcontractors, and other subcontractors) on the proposed team. Facsimile or email transmissions will not be accepted.

IV. Offerors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submission of SF330s.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the internet address provided as necessary for any posted changes to this solicitation and all amendments.

A project-specific design quality control plan must be prepared and approved by the Government as a condition of contract award, but is not required with this submission.

V. JOINT VENTURE/MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign a written agreement 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 in Volume III. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If this is an 8(a), HUBZone, or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned joint venture, the Offeror should ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Part 124, 13 CFR Part 125, and 13 CFR Part 126 respectively.

When proposing as part of a Mentor-Protégé Agreement, include a signed copy of the agreement and the Small Business Administration approval of the agreement with the

SF330.

VI. Other methods of requesting this notice or the synopsis shall not be honored. The solicitation will be posted to FedBizOpps. Contractors can search for the solicitation by the solicitation number. Offerors can register on the FedBizOpps site for the vendor collaboration tool so that possible partnerships and subcontracting opportunities can be identified.

In Section H also indicate the estimated percentage involvement of each firm on the proposed team.

VII. Submissions shall be submitted to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center

CEHNC-CT-PREAWARD

ATTN: Mr. Jean Paul Bretz/ Kijafa T Johnson-Cooper 5021 Bradford Drive NW Huntsville AL 35805

Hand carried submissions shall be dropped off at the same location proposals are to be submitted for this acquisition. The mailroom entrance is located at the back of the building and is clearly marked from the outside. The mailroom personnel will receive the packages, date stamp, x-ray as appropriate and contact the person identified on the package. Hours of operations for the mailroom are 0800-1500 Central Time, Monday-Friday, excluding federal holidays. Hand carried submissions must be date stamped by the mailroom personnel by the specified due date and time.

FACSIMILE OR EMAIL TRANSMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

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

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

VIII. Questions in reference to this notice are to be submitted to the government by Date TBD via Projnet www.projnet.org using bidder inquiry key TBD No questions shall be answered by email or telephonically. The last date to submit questions to Projnet is TBD.

IX. Point of Contacts:

Jean Paul Bretz (Contract Specialist) Office Number: 256-895-7364

Kijafa T Johnson-Cooper (Contracting Officer) Office Number: 256-895-1614