W912EP-16-R-0003-0001.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

Defense Logistics Agency – Distribution Building 109 Roof Replacement and Building Renovations Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida

A. See Continuation Sheet for Amendment details.

B. The proposal due date is extended from 12 July 2016 at 4:00 p.m. EST to 14 July 2016 at 3:00 p.m. EST.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jul-2016

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 W912EP-16-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Jun-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Jul-2016

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE

PRUDENTIAL OFFICE BLDG

701 SAN MARCO BLVD

ATTN: CESAJ-CT

JACKSONVILLE FL 32207-8175

W912EP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

Summary of Changes:

CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATIONS: The following are changes to the specifications.

Specifications have been adequately marked to indicate that they have been changed.

SECTION 00100A – Delete Section 00100A and insert the attached, amended Section 00100A.

SECTION 00800 is amended as follows:

Delete Paragraph Number 999.215-4001 LIMITATIONS ON SUBSTITUTIONS FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS and add the revised Paragraph 999.215-4001 below.

LIMITATIONS ON SUBSTITUTIONS FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS

The award decision for this contract was based, in part, on an evaluation of the personnel and/or subcontractors the Contractor included in its proposal for the positions and/or items of subcontracted work identified at the end of this paragraph. The Contractor agrees these personnel and/or subcontractors will be employed as described in its proposal and no substitutes will be employed without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The Contractor further agrees that any proposed substitutes shall meet or exceed the qualifications of the original personnel and/or subcontractors. If the Contractor’s proposal did not name a subcontractor for an identified item of work, the Contractor will not be allowed to subcontract that item of work without prior approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The limitations described herein shall apply to the following positions and/or items of subcontracted work: Project Manager, Designer of Record, Architect, Construction Quality Control Manager, Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer, Historic Architect, Roofing Subcontractor, Windows Subcontractor, and Electrical Subcontractor.

SECTION 01 11 00 –Delete Section 01 11 00 and insert the attached, amended Section 01 11 00.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-1 Amendment 0001

SECTION 00100A

PHASE 1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUIREMENT

SCOPE OF WORK: Building No. 109 is a 56,000 square-foot former airplane hangar now used as a DLA warehouse, originally built in the 1940s. The building enclosure consists of a steel joist and purlin roof framing system on steel columns with non-load bearing masonry exterior walls with a stucco finish system. Resting on the steel purlins are dimensional “2x” tongue & grove wood slats running perpendicular to the roof slope. The existing roof is a mopped aggregate over built-up roof system over a perlite board covering an older multi-ply built-up roof over the wood deck. The low slope warehouse roof sheds water to through wall scuppers and exterior downspouts. The building is historic in nature; therefore the Corps of Engineers will coordinate all exterior work with the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) prior to commencement of design-build contract, and throughout the design phase of the project to obtain concurrence on final design. The work shall be located at Building 109, Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida.

The Contractor shall be responsible for the full design and construction of the roof replacement and other renovations for Building 109 to include window replacement and lightning protection. The scope of work for roof replacement includes the removal and lawful disposal of the existing warehouse roof system down to existing wood roof deck, inspection of the deck for possible repair or replacement and/or addition of attachment fasteners, and the installation of a new fully adhered, reinforced “fleece backed” TPO single-ply membrane roofing system. Roof replacement shall also include all new metal copings and flashings for existing north elevation parapet, a new parapet extension on the south parapet as shown on the Reference Drawings, replacement of existing scuppers, leader boxes and downspouts, repainting of existing downspout boots at grade, and replacement of roof edge flashing and flashing for any rooftop equipment to remain. Wood nailers and blocking shall be replaced with new prior to reflashing.

Provide new walkway pads provided by roofing manufacturer from points of roof access to all items requiring maintenance or inspection and as shown on drawings.

Replace two existing exterior roof access ladders and one interior roof access ladder.

Remove and replace roof access hatch. New hatch and ladders to comply with current code and OSHA 1026.1053 requirements. Provide 7’-6”H locking security panels on lower portion of new exterior ladders.

Remove all existing window systems in their entirety. Repair openings damaged during removal. Provide new window system and flashing in existing opening in accordance with the High Velocity Hurricane Zone section of the Florida Building Code. Windows shall not be operable. The exterior windows are required to match pattern and locations of existing windows.

Replace existing window protection wire where exists with new 2” x 2” 9 gauge wire protection

– color to match new exterior building color. Where window penetrations from items such as conduit exist, provide insulated metal infill panels in place of glazing at penetration. Provide

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-2 Amendment 0001 weather tight sealant at point of penetration. Metal panels and sealant color to match new window frame color.

All existing finishes including stucco and paint to be removed shall be treated with requirement set forth in 1.4.5 Environmental Requirements. Repair deteriorated stucco. Scrape and encapsulate all loose and flaking paint. Abate all loose paint and deleterious materials from exterior of building. Paint exterior walls to match the paint color and pattern of Building 110.

Restore finish on the existing clock located at the south face of the building. Repair of the mechanical functions of the clock is not a requirement of this contract. The copper exterior siding located at the north face of the building shall remain. Contractor shall take care to not damage and will be responsible for repair if damaged. Prepare and paint the overhead crane and rails.

The magnitude of construction for this project is estimated to be between $5,000,000.00 and $10,000,000.00. The estimated period of performance is 682 days.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award one Firm Fixed Price contract to the responsible Small Business (SB) offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing and whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein.

The acquisition will utilize Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures (See FAR 36.303). A rating of Unacceptable for any Sub-factor will result in a rating of Unacceptable for the entire factor.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list the Phase 1 offerors to a maximum of five of the most highly qualified offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase 2. The Phase Two solicitation will be prepared in accordance with FAR Part 15 and with phase two evaluation factors developed in accordance with 15.304.

The Government intends to make award without holding discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority later determines them to be necessary. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions in their offers for Phase 1 and Phase 2. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, Offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Unless the solicitation specifically invites the Offeror to submit exceptions, the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer may reject any offer that contains exceptions. In this solicitation, the words “offer” and “proposal” are used interchangeably. (See

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-3 Amendment 0001 definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101.) Except for any portions of the Offeror’s proposal incorporated into the resulting contract by specific reference, the terms and conditions included in the solicitation, including any amendments, shall take precedence over the offeror’s proposal.

D. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, a 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 Small Business offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase 2, the offeror or offeror’s subcontractor has to have currently or will acquire professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and meet the requirements specified in Contract Clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers”. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

Contractors submitting an offer as a joint venture must provide a written copy of the joint venture agreement with the initial proposal. The joint venture agreement must be signed by both parties and will be subject to agency review. Also, if the joint venture involves an 8(a) small business, the offeror shall submit evidence from the offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture with the appropriate SBA personnel. The joint venture must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a joint venture in order for an award to be made. In addition, the SF 1442 as well as all future documents (task orders, bonds, etc.) must be signed by both parties.

E. OTHER GENERAL REVIEW

Debarred List

Offerors will be checked in SAM to ensure there are no exclusions listed. Any Offeror who is listed with exclusions will be eliminated without further consideration.

Minor Informalities

Proposals will be checked for minor informalities or irregularities. The Contracting Officer will follow guidance at FAR 14.405 when resolving minor informalities or irregularities. The Contracting Officer either will give the Offeror an opportunity to cure any defect resulting from a minor informality or irregularity or waive the defect, whichever is to the advantage of the Government.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-4 Amendment 0001

F. PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Factor 1 -Technical Merit- Technical Merit is slightly more important than Past Performance. For the following sub-factors, Sub-Factor 1 is considered significantly more important than Sub-Factor 2. Sub-Factor 2 is considered slightly more important than Sub-Factor 3. Sub-Factor 3 is significantly less important than Sub-Factor 1 and slightly less important than Sub-Factor 2.

a. Sub-Factor 1 - Specialized Experience

b. Sub-Factor 2 - Organization and Technical Approach

c. Sub-Factor 3 - Remaining Performance Capability

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance – Second most important factor, slightly less important than Factor 1.

G. PHASE 1 FACTOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

METHODS

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL MERIT

In responding to this factor, the objective should be to instill confidence that the offeror thoroughly understands the requirements and complexities of this project, has the knowledge, expertise and experience required to meet or exceed the terms and conditions of these specifications, and the ability to successfully accomplish and complete task orders that may be issued under this contract within the required time frames as specified in individual task orders.

SUB-FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Specialized Experience -Submission Requirements

The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on projects that are similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the work described in this solicitation, using Construction

– Specialized Experience form – (Attachment 2), and Designer – Specialized Experience Form – (Attachment 3) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify projects that are similar to the types listed below in Relevant Specialized Experience. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. A well underway project is defined as 100% designed and at least 80% construction progress completed. If a project is presented and has not been completed, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not completed and the completion percentage. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or government, private or commercial

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-5 Amendment 0001 customers. If projects presented for specialized experience were design build, the offeror should identify the design firm(s) utilized.

Using the Construction – Specialized Experience Form, the offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) projects similar to the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience below. The maximum number of submitted projects that will be evaluated is five (5) projects within the last 10 years. If more than 5 projects are submitted, only the first 5 projects will be evaluated. Note:

Additional space may be used with both Attachments 2 and 3 to adequately describe submitted projects.

Using the Design – Specialized Experience Form, the offeror shall submit a minimum of three

(3) projects similar to the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience described below. The maximum number of submitted projects that will be evaluated is five (5) projects for the entire proposed design team. . If more than 5 projects are submitted for the design team, only the first 5 projects will be evaluated. Note: Additional space may be used with both Attachments 2 and 3 to adequately describe submitted projects.

Relevant Specialized Experience for Evaluation Consideration:

Projects that included 3,000 square feet or more of high velocity hurricane resistant window replacement/installation as well as projects for renovation or new construction of commercial or industrial buildings of 10,000 square feet or more that include window replacement/installation, roof replacement/installation, incidental mechanical and electrical work, and abatement of lead or asbestos. At least one window replacement project submitted must include 3,000 square feet or more of replacement/installation of high velocity hurricane resistant windows on a multi-story building. At least one project submitted must include windows and roofing on the same project.

Specialized Experience – Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, as relevant to their role on this project.

The design firm(s) or the design capabilities of the prime contractor will be evaluated only for experience similar to the projects described in Relevant Specialized Experience. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for construction projects examples which are similar in function, scope, complexity, and size to this solicitation and clearly demonstrate the offeror’s abilities to execute the projects successfully while maintaining cost and schedule. In addition, this criterion will be evaluated for the quantity and quality of experience demonstrated. The greater the relevance and the more recent the prior project experience, the higher the rating assigned during evaluations. Demonstration of experience in completing projects that had the unique characteristics of the proposed project will be evaluated more favorably.

Submitted projects that demonstrate experience with all of the types of work listed in Relevant Specialized Experience on a single project may receive higher evaluation ratings.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-6 Amendment 0001

Higher evaluation ratings will be given for projects where the contractor has previously worked with the Designer.

The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in both design and construction, for projects that are similar to the Relevant Specialized Experience (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this solicitation. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within ten (10) years of the proposal issue date for this solicitation for design or construction experience. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in a detailed narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror and its proposed design firm(s) shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project.

The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy may include, but not be limited to:

(1) Nature, magnitude, and complexity and location

(2) Dates (80% completed or completed no more than ten (10) years preceding date of Solicitation)

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “ placing the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

Previous design-build (D-B) experience is not necessary for an acceptable rating. The Government may consider previous D-B experience a strength, even if the experience is on different type projects than this project. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience demonstrating previous teaming, the more credit will be given.

The ability for contractor personnel to gain access to secure facilities to perform work is required (for example: RAPIDGate, or Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC)). Previous experience working on or in secure facilities is considered a strength. Previous experience working on or in occupied facilities is considered a strength.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-7 Amendment 0001

The firm(s) or prime contractor preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and experience in design considerations and development of designs of the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience.

Previous relevant experience on projects for buildings that are considered to have historic significance may be considered a strength. Historic significance is define as listed on the historical register or eligible to be listed on the historical register.

SUB-FACTOR 2 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Concisely and clearly, describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

Organization: Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established.

Identify the design firm(s) chosen, if not to be self-performed. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s) using the format in (Attachment 7). Include an organizational chart illustrating the organization, including key personnel and the proposed quality control group(s). The chart shall depict the key positions and names of personnel, their firm affiliations and their job/position title within the organization. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and delegations of authority within the team.

Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: Provide a consolidated list of key personnel with name, position title and description of project responsibility for each. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the cited project examples. If alternates are proposed for key personnel, the rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference. Include key designers, whether employed by the prime or by a design subcontractor. For each person identified provide a brief resume, using the Key Personnel Resume forms (Attachment 5) at the end of this section. The following key personnel must be identified and corresponding resume must be provided:

• Project Manager

• Designer of Record

• Architect

• Historic Architect

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-8 Amendment 0001

• Construction Quality Control Manager

• Superintendent

• Site Safety and Health Officer

Resumes submitted for key personnel must contain projects with dates and roles on project to clearly demonstrate that the individual possesses the required years of relevant experience.

All designers of record must be registered in accordance with contract clause: 52.236-25, Requirements for Registration of Designers.

In accordance with the non-substitution clause in Section 00800 (999.215-4001), Limitations on Substitutions for Certain Positions and/or Subcontractors, a letter of commitment must be provided for any proposed major subcontractor or key personnel.

A major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that is crucial for successfully completing the project. The key subcontractors identified for this project is roofing subcontractors and electrical subcontractors.

Key Personnel for this project are all the disciplines identified in paragraph “Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience” above.

A letter of commitment is defined as a letter from the subcontractor or key person on official Company letterhead (1) addressed to the prime contractor, (2) identifying the work they intend to perform, and (3) stating that they are willing to be bound to perform the identified work if the prime receives this contract.

Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor or key personnel will be noted as a weakness.

Use the form letter (attachment 6) at the end of this section to provide letters of commitment.

Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track the design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews and approvals, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-builts, and completion documentation. In addition to the required designer-of-record (DOR) roles specified within the RFP for maintaining integrity of the design, describe any other DOR involvement in the quality control process, if any. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-9 Amendment 0001 demonstrable capabilities to assure control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s minimum quality control system requirements.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Organization: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the design-build process (and the requirements described in the Division 01 requirements of the Solicitation) and the capability to execute the project.

The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience: The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction. Use the Letter of Commitment (attachment 6) and the Key Personnel Resume Form (attachment 5). Past Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work. The Government will give additional consideration to previous design-build experience. Evaluate whether designers of record are registered (a requirement), experienced and qualified.

Project Manager: This is the individual who has the direct responsibility for all operations on the site. This individual shall have a recognized four year college degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management, minimum experience of five years (or minimum experience of ten years in lieu of a four year degree) in managing and supervising construction and/or engineering for projects similar in scope of the Task Order. Professional(s) shall be familiar and conversant with the various codes and standards applicable to the scope of work.

The Project Manager for a Task Order shall oversee task accomplishment, administer all instructions, and answer all questions from the Contracting Officer pertaining to the tasks during the life of the Task Order.

Designer of Record: The Engineer/Architect shall have a recognized four-year college degree in engineering or architecture, have a professional license, and a minimum of 5 years design experience in his/her respective discipline.

Architect: The architect shall have a recognized four-year college degree in architecture, have a professional license, and a minimum of 5 years design experience in his/her respective discipline.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-10 Amendment 0001

Historic Architect: The Historic Architect shall have a professional degree in architecture or a State license to practice architecture, plus one of the following: 1) A minimum of one year of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or 2) A minimum of one year of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects. Such graduate study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. In addition, The Historic Architect shall also meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Architecture.

Construction Quality Control Manager: The minimum requirements for the key person identified by the offeror to perform the Quality Control during the construction are at least five years of experience in Quality Control during the construction of the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience of commercial or industrial type experience of similar size, scope and technical consideration.

General Superintendent: The minimum experience requirements for the Superintendent are at least five years of experience as superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors during the construction of the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience of commercial or industrial type experience of similar size, scope and technical consideration.

Site Safety and Health Officer: The SSHO is required to have a minimum of five years of construction industry safety experience. If the individual possesses a Third-Party, Nationally Accredited (ANSI or National Commission for Certifying Agencies - NCCA) SOH-related certification, only four years of experience is needed. The SSHO is required to have completed the 30-hour OSHA General Industry safety class.

If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference.

Quality Control:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process and participation of construction personnel during the design process. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-11 Amendment 0001

SUB-FACTOR 3 – REMAINING PERFORMANCE CAPACITY

Submission Requirements:

Identify the Key Subcontractors chosen for roofing, windows, and electrical work, describing the extent of their involvement on past projects similar to the project types listed in the Relevant Specialized Experience. Submit a minimum of three (3) projects similar to the types listed in Relevant Specialized Experience for each key subcontractor for roofing, windows, and electrical work. The maximum number of submitted projects for each key subcontractor that will be evaluated is five (5) projects. If more than 5 projects are submitted for a key subcontractor, only the first 5 projects will be evaluated. Note: Additional space may be used with both Attachments 2 and 3 to adequately describe submitted projects. Provide a narrative using (attachment 2), using in accordance with the same requirements as described in the Phase 1 Specialized Experience submission requirements, including submission of past performance ratings. The ratings may be from either the owner or the prime contractor, if the firms were subcontractors on the cited projects. The offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its key subcontractors. Use the Letter of Commitment (attachment 8) at the end of this section. Contractors who will self-perform roofing, windows or electrical work may submit five additional specialized experience forms in this section.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the specialized experience of the Key Subcontractors for roofing, windows, and electrical, using the same criteria as in the Factor 1 Technical Merit, Sub-Factor 1 Specialized Experience in Phase 1 evaluation, as applicable to their role on this project with the following additional requirements: 1. Electrical Sub must demonstrate experience in lightning protection in at least two projects. 2. At least two projects submitted by the window sub must include installation/replacement of high velocity hurricane zone windows of 3,000 Square foot of more. No substitution of key subcontractors will be allowed without contracting officer approval in accordance with Clause 999.215-4001 below:

LIMITATIONS ON SUBSTITUTIONS FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS AND/OR

SUBCONTRACTORS

The award decision for this contract was based, in part, on an evaluation of the personnel and/or subcontractors the Contractor included in its proposal for the positions and/or items of subcontracted work identified at the end of this paragraph. The Contractor agrees these personnel and/or subcontractors will be employed as described in its proposal and no substitutes will be employed without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The Contractor further agrees that any proposed substitutes shall meet or exceed the qualifications of the original personnel and/or subcontractors. If the Contractor’s proposal did not name a subcontractor for an identified item of work, the Contractor will not be allowed to subcontract that item of work without prior approval of the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer. The limitations described herein shall apply to the

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-12 Amendment 0001 following positions and/or items of subcontracted work: Subcontractors for roofing, windows, and electrical, Project Manager, Designer of Record, Architect, Historic Architect Electrical Designer of Record, Construction Quality Control Manager, Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer.

(End of paragraph number 999.215-4001)

Once the individual ratings for Sub-Factor 1, Specialized Experience, Sub-Factor 2, Organizational and Technical Approach, and Sub-Factor 3, Remaining Performance Capacity, are assigned, an overall Technical Merit Rating will be assigned

FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 4), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC” for each of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE and Sub-Factor 3 Remaining Performance Capabilities. All pages of each NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire must be initialed and dated on the bottom right-hand corner by the POC. Failure to provide a completed and signed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire for each project as described above may be noted as a deficiency. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record is available for any of the projects submitted under Sub-Factor 1-Specialized Experience, and Sub-Factor 3 Remaining Performance Capabilities, the CPARS record may be submitted in lieu of the completed Past Performance Questionnaire or an official Performance Evaluation from a non-federal agency.

The Owner of the Project (Client) or “POC” is defined as the entity that took ownership of the project after construction was complete.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed Past Performance Questionnaire from the Owner of the Project (Client), before the proposal receipt date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the Questionnaire (Blocks 1-8) that contains contract and client information for the submitted project. Note: it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the client’s point of contact information is current and correct. The client point of contact reflected in Blocks 1-8 should also be familiar with the past performance they are being asked to verify and informed that they will be contacted by the Government to verify past performance.

The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CPARS records contained in the CPARS database for the offeror or offeror’s major subcontractors.

Evaluation Method

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The assessment considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-13 Amendment 0001 relevant past performances in supplying services that meet the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation, recent, relevancy, and quality.

Recent is defined as projects that are currently well underway or completed and turned over no longer than ten (10) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. A well underway project is defined as 100% designed and at least 80% construction progress completed.

Relevancy evaluates whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the demonstrated experiences provided by the offeror under Sub-Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 3 above. Relevancy will be determined based on the timeframe for project completion given under Sub-Factor 1 and Sub- Factor 3 and the level of similarity between the offeror provided demonstrated experiences and the solicitation requirements. For example, a demonstrated experience provided under Sub- Factor 1 or 3 that was completed within the last ten years (measured from the date of the solicitation) that involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires will most likely be given a relevancy rating of Very Relevant (see Relevance Rating Definitions below).

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a specialized experience submitted in Sub-Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 3. This will be determined by utilizing the completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires or submitted CPARS records. The POC provided on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire will be contacted to verify the past performance ratings provided. If the POC cannot be contacted, the past performance rating will be noted as “Unknown”. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the POC’s contact information is current (i.e. names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses). The point of contact should be familiar with the performance they are intended to verify and be aware that they will be contacted by the Government.

Once Relevancy Ratings are assigned and Past Performance Ratings are verified, the Government will conclude the past performance evaluation with a performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment will be based on the relevance of the projects provided and the ratings received based on the submitted and completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires as well as CPARS if available. The performance confidence is the level of risk associated with the offeror as it relates to the probability that the offeror will successfully complete this project (see Performance Confidence Assessments Definitions below).

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Relevance Rating Definitions

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

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-14 Amendment 0001

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown 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.

PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

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, and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

EVALUATION

Each member of the SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals independently and subsequently assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and sub-factor. Offerors are cautioned to put

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-15 Amendment 0001 forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability.

The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select not more than five of the most highly qualified offerors to compete for the Design Build Construction award in Phase 2.

DEFINITIONS

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.

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

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

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.

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

Deviation- Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is considered a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and sub-factor (if any). Each member of the SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. The technical rating assigned will reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. After all proposals are rated, the Source Selection Authority will determine which Offerors are rated as most highly qualified offerors under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and sub-factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-16 Amendment 0001 the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

TECHNICAL MERIT RATING DEFINITIONS

Outstanding:

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

Good:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and 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:

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

Unacceptable:

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in completing projects that are similar to the solicitation requirements. A relevancy rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant will first be assigned for projects submitted under specialized experience and past performance.

W912EP-16-R-0003 00100A-17 Amendment 0001

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions

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…