B.08.03_19R0027_Am-0001_SF30_FINAL.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

FY19 SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION FACILITY (SCIF) CONSTRUCTION MATOC FOR GERMANY, BELGIUM, POLAND, ROMANIA, & ESTONIA

(See Continued)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jul-2019

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 W912GB19R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Jun-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

11-Jul-2019

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB19R0027

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

AM-0001

1. CHANGES TO SOLICITATION. Attached hereto are new and revised pages to the solicitation.

a. REVISED ITEMS:

i. Table of Contents

ii. Section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers

iii. Section 01 30 00 – Administrative Requirements

iv. Section 01 00 00 – General Requirements/Summary of Work

v. FAR 52.228-1

vi. Attachment 2 - Contractor Past Experience Information Sheet

b. DELETED ITEMS:

None

c. NEW ITEMS:

i. Attachment 7 – Standard Form 24 Bid Bond

ii. Responses to Requests for Information (RFIs) via ProjNet

iii. Pre-proposal conference slides

iv. Pre-proposal conference attendee sign-in sheet

2. The proposal closing date/time remains 17 July 2019, 1000 hrs Central European Summer Time (CEST).

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. W912GB19R0027

MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY19 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) Construction MATOC for Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, & Estonia

SECTION TITLE

Section 00 10 00 Solicitation [Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule] Section 00 21 00 Instructions Section 00 22 00 Supplementary Instructions Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Section 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract

Section 00 71 00 Definitions Section 00 72 00 General Conditions Section 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions Section 01 1100 00 General Requirements/Summary of Work Section 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Contractor Past Experience Overview Sheet Attachment 2 – Contractor Past Experience Information Sheet Attachment 3 – USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (to be completed by Client) Attachment 4 – Architect-Engineer Experience Attachment 5 – Letter of Commitment Sample Attachment 6 – ProjNet Instructions Attachment 7 – Standard Form 24 Bid Bond Attachment A – Seed Project RFP (will be issued with Phase II) Attachment B – Pricing Schedule No. 1 Attachment C – Price Schedule No. 2 (Seed Project—will be issued with Phase II)

SPECIFICATIONS:

SECTION 00 74 00 SPECIAL CONDITIONS APR 2019

SECTION 00 74 02 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 00 74 10 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN GERMANY (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 00 74 18 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ROMANIA (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 00 74 19 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN POLAND (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 01 30 00 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (NAU) APR 2019

SECTION 01 30 05 GOVERNMENT PROJECT OFFICE JAN 2019

SECTION 01 32 01 PROJECT SCHEDULE (NAU) MAY 2019

SECTION 01 32 16 SMALL PROJECT PROGRESS SCHEDULES (NAU) MAY 2019

SECTION 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (NAU) APR 2018

SECTION 01 33 16 DESIGN AFTER AWARD (NAU) NOV 2018

SECTION 01 35 26 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (NAU) MAR 2018

SECTION 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL (NAU) FEB 2019

SECTION 01 45 01 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM) (NAU) APR

SECTION 01 45 05 CONTRACTOR SITE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 01 45 10 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL APR 2018

SECTION 01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS (NAU) MAR 2019

SECTION 01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA (NAU) JUN 2018

ICS 705 TECHNICAL-SPECIFICATIONS-SCIF CONSTRUCTION

ICS-705-1

CONSTRUCTION SIGNS (GERMAN) NOV 20018

CONSTRUCTION SIGNS (ENGLISH) NOV 2008

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION I

OVERVIEW

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Europe District (NAU) has enduring requirements to provide SCIF construction services for Army (USA), Air Force (USAF), and other Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Agencies located on DoD installations or in support of defense operations within Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia.

B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District (NAU) has a mission to provide design and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction to support the US Army, Joint Forces, and any work associated in direct support of the US Government. The SCIF Construction MATOC is for design-bid-build and design-build construction projects in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia. These requirements are often time-critical and of a highly sensitive nature.

The purpose of this NAU Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOC is to provide SCIF construction, real property repair and maintenance, associated environmental work, and force protection work in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia. Use of the MATOC will provide the Government with a construction product delivery method that can accommodate quick and straight-forward projects, as well as some small but complex projects, and can help minimize design effort and related overhead expenditures, as well as handle compressed schedules.

Task Orders will primarily address new design-build or design-bid-build construction, building renovation, associated environmental work including, but not limited to, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, and concrete work for SCIFs. Contract awards are anticipated for US Forces and/or Facilities in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia.

USACE Europe District intends to solicit competitive proposals in accordance with FAR 6.1 Full and Open Competition. Additionally, this acquisition will be based on competition among all United States firms or US Joint Ventures responding to the solicitation, which will be issued to qualified firms that meet or have the ability to obtain Facility Clearance (FCL) IAW the requirement as set forth by the Defense Security Service.

The offeror will be required to have a valid FCL or have the ability to obtain FCL, pursuant to Defense information Systems Agency Industrial Security program & DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification Implementation Guide, in conjunction with DOD 5220.22-R, Industrial Security Regulation (ISR) and DOD 5220.22-M, National industrial Security Program Operation manual (NISPOM).

The Contracts will be awarded only to U.S. Firms and paid in U.S. ($) dollars. If the Offeror wishes to perform some of the work using subcontractors (subject to the 25% prime contractor work requirement stated in FAR 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor), the prime contractor may use subcontractors subject to the vetting and approval of subcontractors by the Accrediting Official. Restrictions on non-U.S. subcontractors and labor may apply on a task order by task order basis. In addition, offerors are advised that workers and subcontractors from countries identified as critical for Technical or Human Intelligence threat, or listed on the DOS Prohibited Countries matrix may not be approved. Accordingly, subcontractors will be submitted and approved on a task order by task order basis.

Once approved, the contractor may not change subcontractors without the Contracting Officer's approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer, in the exercise of his/her sole discretion, considers the proposed substitute to be equal or better in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and the contracting officer considers the substitution to be in the best interests of the Government.

C. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The intended approach is to award at least two (2) contracts. These will be Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Construction Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for Design Build (DB) and Design Bid Build (DBB) construction projects in support of DoD and other Federal agencies. The intention is to solicit this as a two phase solicitation in accordance with FAR 36.3 to establish the MATOC base contracts. The anticipated shared contract capacity is $49,900,000.

A Top Secret Facility Site Clearance IS NOT required for this MATOC however individual projects may require Statements of Affiliation (SOAs) for all companies. All contractors must have personnel that meet the U.S.

citizenship requirements identified in the task order Scope of Work as some task orders will require only U.S.

citizens to perform on those task orders.

The Offerors successful in obtaining a contract award will be those Offerors whose proposals represent the best values and are determined to provide the most benefit to the Government.

D. TASK ORDERS

Task orders may be either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build. The individual projects will be a variety of construction types. The task orders will range in size and complexity from small to large and from non-complex to highly technical. Funding may be either Military Construction funding (MILCON) or Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. Other types of funding may utilized if authorized for constructions projects.

All task orders will be firm-fixed-priced task orders. Each task order will require payment performance bonds for the full value of the task order and a bid bond will be required with each task order proposal. All contract holders will be afforded the opportunity to propose on each task order, should they so choose. Awardees are not required to propose on all task orders, but must notify if not proposing. However, if zero (0) proposals are received in a given year, Contractors may be at risk of being removed or “off-ramped” from the MATOC.

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

**References to Government throughout the solicitation and subsequent contract awards, refer to the United States Government, unless otherwise noted.***

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The requirements for the preparation and submission of proposals and the requirements for the evaluation of proposals in response to this solicitation are contained in the Request for Proposals. The source selection process will use a two-phase selection approach as authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2305a. The first phase of the selection process will determine if the contractor is among the most highly qualified as outlined in the solicitation. If a contractor’s proposal is considered among the highly qualified in Phase I, they will be invited to submit additional information for Phase II for evaluation.

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the award will be made to at least two (2) Offerors in accordance with Section 2305a of title 10, United States Code who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value to the Government. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of five (5) factors: Factor 1: Past Performance of Construction Projects, Factor 2: Management Approach, Factor 3: Architect- Engineering Team, Factor 4: Seed Project Narrative, and Factor 5: Seed Project Price/Price Schedule.

Past Performance of Construction Projects contains a pass/fail element. The Offerors must submit at least three (3) of the five (5) projects in which they performed as the prime (i.e. the offeror) and two (2) of the five (5) projects being SCIF work in accordance with ICD/ICS 705. In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet that minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

Once the proposal is rated “Pass” for this aspect, the relative weight of the evaluation factors is as follows:

In Phase I, Factors 1, 2 and 3 are in descending order of importance. After all of the evaluations have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors are deemed to be the most highly qualified. The Government’s intention is to determine a select pool of the most competent and qualified Offerors to move on to Phase II, based on the confidence and adjectival ratings of Factors 1, 2 and 3. The Government will select at least two (2) offerors to move to Phase II.

In Phase II, Offerors ratings for Factors 1, 2, and 3 will advance from Phase I. The order of importance for Phase II, will be Factor 4, Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 5. Therefore, Factor 4 is more important than Factor 1, which is more important than Factor 2, which is more important than Factor 3, which is more important than Factor

5. When combined all non-price factors are approximately equal to Factor 5price.

Trade-off Analysis: After evaluations of all Phase II proposals are completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offerors submitted proposals that represent the “best values” to the Government for this project.

The Government will select at least two (2) offers that represent the “best values” to the Government. Of those selected for the MATOC pool, the Offeror representing the overall “best value” will be awarded the seed project as its first task order. The Government reserves the right to award the seed project task order to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government. Unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range. The awarded contract will incorporate the successful offerors proposal to the extent it offers betterments and does not conflict with the solicitation requirements.

The Source Selection Decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The decision shall be documented and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA including benefits associated with additional costs. In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, a tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror(s) or other than the highest technically rated offeror(s). This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406 -- Documentation.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Evaluation methodology for the procurement consists of five (5) factors:

Phase I:

Factor 1 – Past Performance of Construction Projects Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Architect-Engineering Team

Phase II:

Factor 4 – Seed Project – Technical Approach Narrative Factor 5 – Seed Project Price/Price Schedule

Factor 1: Past Performance of Construction Projects (Phase I): Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an overall adjectival rating to the factor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Management Approach (Phase I): Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each element as it applies to the evaluation criteria. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section and the Section 00100 for incorporation into the solicitation.

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an overall adjectival rating to the factor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Architect-Engineer Team (Phase I): Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the evaluation criteria. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section and the Section 00100 for incorporation into the solicitation. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an overall adjectival rating to the factor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 4: Seed Project – Technical Approach Narrative (Phase II): Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each element as it applies to the evaluation criteria. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section for incorporation into the solicitation in the Phase II amendment to the solicitation. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an overall adjectival rating to the factor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 5: Seed Project Price/Price Schedule (Phase II): The resulting awards will be firm-fixed-price base contracts.

The task order, and all awarded task orders, will be issued on a firm-fixed-price basis. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the task order as well as the price schedule. In addition, the resulting award will contain a price schedule that establishes set prices for certain disciplines to be used for task orders and modifications.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

This section describes the tasks required for completion of a fair, comprehensive, and impartial source selection process. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) members.

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

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

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven techniques.

2. EVALUATION RATINGS

a. Proposal Ratings: Factors 1-4 will be adjectivally rated. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

See paragraph 6 below for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to these factors.

b. Past Performance Assessment Definitions. Factor 1 will be evaluated using the two aspects of the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence.

Relevancy ratings will be used by the Government in assessing the relevancy of the submitted projects to allow assessment of the overall confidence rating.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS are listed and defined below. The Relevancy ratings are as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Adjectival 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.

The Past Performance Confidence Ratings are as follows:

Technical Rating Definitions.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 2:

MANAGEMENT APPROACH, 3: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER TEAM, and 4: SEED PROJECT – TECHNICAL

APPROACH NARRATIVE.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjective Rating Description

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

PHASE I

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the depth and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the offeror’s proposal.

Projects considered recent and relevant shall demonstrate as many of the following project types (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible:

a. Completed within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation;

b. Performed Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) (project performed within the European Union will be considered more relevant, while projects performed in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia will be considered most relevant);

c. Design-Build construction projects;

d. New construction or renovations of buildings that demonstrate experience with Sensitive Compartmented

Information Facilities (SCIFs) in compliance with ICD 705 standards;

e. Replacement to include major building systems (electrical, mechanical, structural, etc.) repaired or replaced.

Projects older than 6 years may be considered, but will be considered less relevant. SCIF construction/renovation projects performed in accordance with ICD/ICS 705 in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia will be considered more relevant. Projects that do not meet these criteria above may be given a lower relevancy rating.

Projects meeting all criteria will be given a higher relevancy rating.

NOTE: The prime contractor must have performed at least three (3) of the five (5) projects submitted for Factor 1 AND two (2) of the five (5) projects submitted must be SCIF construction. This aspect is a pass/fail element. In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The offeror shall provide the performance evaluations for the submitted projects that demonstrate the offeror’s performance on recent and relevant projects. The offeror shall provide formal performance evaluation if available.

Formal performance evaluations are those similar to the new Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) or the former Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD 2626. The Government’s preference is the formal evaluation. If the formal evaluation is included, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is NOT required or desired.

If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the offeror shall obtain the information using the form entitled, “NAVFAC/ USACE Past Performance Questionnaire” included (Attachment 3). The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance of Construction Projects. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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 the Government’s point of contact, Candace Lotomau via email at Candace.C.Lotomau@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last six years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract. The commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

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.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Quality: The degree to which the Offeror has complied with the contract requirements; met quality standards; was timely in regard to problem resolution without extensive customer guidance; and the shown effectiveness of his prior quality control program.

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance: Whether the Offeror met contract completion dates including significant milestones and where schedules were exceeded, whether the Offeror identified valid justifications for the delays or if liquidated damages were assessed due to late delivery by the Offeror.

c. Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which end-users were satisfied with the project; whether the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in regard to resolving disagreements; whether the Offeror was responsive and businesslike with concern for the customer, and whether the Offeror achieved customer satisfaction.

d. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce; controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed projects and easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

e. Cost/Financial Management: Whether the Offeror met the contract requirements by completing the project at the agreed to price and where not, the extent to which the Offeror was responsible for cost increases; whether the Offeror provided alternative methods that benefited the client; whether the Offeror submitted invoices timely with sufficient documentation to substantiate requested payment and avoided significant unexplained variances from the original price.

f. Safety/Security: The Offeror’s prior record for maintaining an environment of safety, adherence to a safety plan, and compliance with safety requirements, including following safety regulations, housekeeping, and correcting noted deficiencies, as well as the Offeror’s prior compliance with all security requirements and personnel security requirements when applicable.

The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the Government, on the organizational chart (graph) and is organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. Whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the a) Program Manager, b) Project Manager , c) Site Superintendent, d) Quality Control Manager, e) Design Quality Control Manager, f) Safety Manager, and g) Security Manager, and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc.), and whether the roles and major responsibilities and authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs, are presented in a logical manner.

3. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of two (2) simultaneous SCIF task orders that illustrates a thorough understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or JV agreements, when applicable. Specifically, whether the proposal describes the overall corporate structure and how project teams are organized to support multiple and concurrent task orders, and the respective levels of authority. Also the extent to which the narrative includes a description of how the Offeror will support the geographic boundaries of the MATOC and why the team is uniquely qualified to undertake this contract, its approach to construction, and working with the customer(s) during construction.

4. The extent the offeror describes, in detail, its methods and approach to Design Build and Design-Bid-Build projects.

5. The extent to which the proposal describes how they intend to manage quality throughout the contract and per task order.

6. The extent the offeror describes its scheduling capabilities.

7. The extent the offeror describes its familiarity and plan to comply with ICD/ICS 705 requirements in an

OCONUS environment.

FACTOR 3: ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING TEAM

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for completeness, reasonableness, and logic and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute design for an ordered project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan in relation to their design capabilities described below as follows:

1. DORs’ experience and performance on relevant construction projects (to include SCIFs).

2. Plan demonstrating Offerors’ understanding of certification and registration requirements for design in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Romania, or Estonia, and ability to meet these requirements.

The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in the submission requirements for this Factor that demonstrates the DOR’s experience in relevant projects and ability to successfully meet all of the requirements related to designing a constructible project for this requirement.

PHASE II

At least two (2) Offerors which are determined to be the most highly qualified Offerors will advance to Phase II.

The Phase II solicitation will be issued via Amendment to the Offerors selected to advance to Phase II. Only those Offerors selection to move from Phase I to Phase II will be requested to submit proposals for Phase II.

PHASE II - VOLUME I

FACTOR 4: SEED PROJECT – TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. To achieve an “acceptable” the Offeror will submit the information listed in submission requirements for this Factor that demonstrates a sound approach capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

PROJECT NARRATIVE: Project Narratives must provide a detailed, project-specific discussion of the significant features of the work described in this RFP and must address all of the elements identified in submission requirements for this Factor. The project narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the project and an understanding of the requirements of the project that is the subject of this RFP.

Extra consideration shall be given for quality materials that are utilized to maximize the operability and maintainability of the building to reduce maintenance.

KEY PERSONNEL: The Offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in submission requirements for this Factor.

SCHEDULE: The Offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in submission requirements for this Factor. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the project and an understanding of the requirements of this project.

The Government will evaluate the schedule for integrated design and construction. All field overhead costs are to be included in the contract price for the proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government will evaluate the design packaging plan for logic, reasonableness, how it facilitates meeting the proposed contract duration and how it facilitates the Government’s ability to timely perform its design reviews. The packaging plan should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination for reviews. For example, is the footing and foundation plan based on adequate design for building loads; etc.? A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major deliverables and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction may receive extra consideration. Schedule advantages are those identified in this paragraph.

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in submission requirements for this Factor. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to mitigate issues and an understanding of the requirements of this project.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS: The Offeror shall meet the requirements of this factor if the section addresses all of the elements identified in submission requirements for this Factor. The narrative must demonstrate a reasonable approach to the change management process and an understanding of the requirements of this project.

PHASE II - VOLUME II

FACTOR 5: SEED PROJECT PRICE/PRICE SCHEDULE

Evaluation Criteria:

Price Analysis: The process of examining and evaluating an offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair, reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. Price analysis may involve comparison with other prices; e.g., comparing an offeror’s proposed price with the proposed prices of competing offerors or with previously proposed prices for the same or similar items; and/or any of the price analysis techniques specified in FAR part 15.404-1(b)(2).

The Price Evaluation Board (PEB) will perform a price analysis to develop a report that summarizes and compares the Offerors proposed price information to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and with the proposed prices of competing offerors. The report will be briefed to the SSA.

The price for the seed project shall be evaluated as identified above.

The rates submitted for the schedule will be evaluated for reasonableness and may be compared against the

IGE.

The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

E. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS – PHASE I

1. Introduction. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained in the solicitation. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. NOTE: When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout this request for proposal (RFP), it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered throughout this solicitation, it is intended to mean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the Scope of Work with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. Inquiries. Offerors with inquiries shall submit their Requests for Information (RFIs) via Bidder Inquiry in

ProjNet (see instruction in Attachment 6). Only the Prime Contractor shall submit RFIs into ProjNet. The ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Key is: 4M77E7-2P972R

3. General Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Electronic Proposals. In an effort to reduce paper and costs, ALL RESPONSES TO THIS

ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY VIA ARL AMRDEC SAFE .

Hand carried delivery or commercial delivery (e.g. USPS/UPS/Fedex/DHL) of hard copies and/or CD- ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email submission is not authorized, with the exception of Attachment 3, USACE Past Performance Questionnaires. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, ARL AMRDEC SAFE (https://safe.arl.army.mil/https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe). The ARL AMRDEC SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to ARL AMRDEC SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.arl.army.mil/https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

i. Use the Drop-off option to send your proposalLogin as Guest (or Non-CAC Users).

ii. Personal Information. Fill in name and email.

iii. Recipient TO Information. IMPORTANT: Add TWO recipients:

1. Candace.C.Lotomau@usace.army.mil

2. Christian.Solinsky@usace.army.mil

iv. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter W912GB19R0027-FIRMNAME.

v. Click Drop-off FilesUpload button to send documents.

v.vi. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

b. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the ARL AMRDEC SAFE instructions for uploading files. AMRDECARL SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

c. File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912GB19R0027 RESPONSE Firmname Phase I.pdf”

(2) “W912GB19R0027 RESPONSE Firmname Phase II Volume I.pdf”

(3) “W912GB19R0027 RESPONSE Firmname Phase II Volume II.pdf” Note: Phase II proposals will only be requested of those Offerors that pass Phase I.

d. File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 12 point or larger. Pages shall be letter sized, 8.5”x11”--larger page sizes (such as 11”x17” foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals typed in the English language and easy to read. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

e. Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within ARL AMRDEC SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload.