21R0010 Amend 0002.pdf

W912GB21R0010

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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the follow ing:

- US government response to all bidder inquiries

- SF 24

- Specif ication Binder

- Extend due date to 01 June 2021

- Updated Phase 1, Factor 1: Past Performance of Construction Projects evaluation criteria

- Updated price schedule as asterisk has "no" signif icance

- Security Manager added to Key Personnel under Factor 4 Seed Project

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-May-2021

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 W912GB21R0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Apr-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-May-2021

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. W912GB21R0010

MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY21 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) Construction MATOC for the EUCOM and AFRICOM AOR, and Israel

SECTION TITLE

Section 00 10 00 Solicitation [Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule] Section 00 21 00 Instructions Section 00 21 16 Instruction to Proposers Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Section 00 60 00 Project Forms Section 00 62 00 Certificates and Other Forms Section 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract Section 00 71 00 Definitions Section 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions Section 01 00 00 General 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 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

SECTION 00 74 02 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER

SECTION 00 74 10 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN GERMANY

SECTION 00 74 11 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN BELGIUM

SECTION 00 74 15 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ISRAEL

SECTION 00 74 17 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ITALY

SECTION 00 74 18 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ROMANIA

SECTION 00 74 19 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN POLAND

SECTION 01 30 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 30 05 GOVERNMENT PROJECT OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 06 GOVERNMENT FIELD OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 07 GOVERNMENT RESIDENT OFFICE

SECTION 01 32 01 PROJECT SCHEDULE (NAU)

SECTION 01 32 02 PROJECT SCHEDULES FOR SMALL PROJECTS

SECTION 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (NAU)

SECTION 01 33 16 DESIGN AFTER AWARD (NAU)

SECTION 01 35 26 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL (NAU)

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

SECTION 01 45 05 CONTRACTOR SITE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 10 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL

SECTION 01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS (NAU)

SECTION 01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA (NAU)

to:

Section 00 21 00 Instructions Section 00 21 16 Instruction to Proposers Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Section 00 60 00 Project Forms Section 00 62 00 Certificates and Other Forms Section 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract Section 00 71 00 Definitions Section 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions Section 01 00 00 General 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 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) Bidder Inquiry Responses

SF 24

SPECIFICATIONS:

SECTION 00 74 00 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 00 74 02 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER

SECTION 00 74 10 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN GERMANY

SECTION 00 74 11 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN BELGIUM

SECTION 00 74 15 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ISRAEL

SECTION 00 74 17 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ITALY

SECTION 00 74 18 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ROMANIA

SECTION 00 74 19 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN POLAND

SECTION 01 30 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 30 05 GOVERNMENT PROJECT OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 06 GOVERNMENT FIELD OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 07 GOVERNMENT RESIDENT OFFICE

SECTION 01 32 01 PROJECT SCHEDULE (NAU)

SECTION 01 32 02 PROJECT SCHEDULES FOR SMALL PROJECTS

SECTION 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (NAU)

SECTION 01 33 16 DESIGN AFTER AWARD (NAU)

SECTION 01 35 26 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL (NAU)

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

SECTION 01 45 05 CONTRACTOR SITE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 10 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 00 21 00 Instructions Section 00 21 16 Instruction to Proposers Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Section 00 60 00 Project Forms Section 00 62 00 Certificates and Other Forms Section 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract Section 00 71 00 Definitions Section 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions Section 01 00 00 General 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 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) Bidder Inquiry Responses

SF 24

SPECIFICATIONS:

SECTION 00 74 00 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 00 74 02 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER

SECTION 00 74 10 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN GERMANY

SECTION 00 74 11 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN BELGIUM

SECTION 00 74 15 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ISRAEL

SECTION 00 74 17 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ITALY

SECTION 00 74 18 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN ROMANIA

SECTION 00 74 19 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECTS IN POLAND

SECTION 01 30 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 30 05 GOVERNMENT PROJECT OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 06 GOVERNMENT FIELD OFFICE

SECTION 01 30 07 GOVERNMENT RESIDENT OFFICE

SECTION 01 32 01 PROJECT SCHEDULE (NAU)

SECTION 01 32 02 PROJECT SCHEDULES FOR SMALL PROJECTS

SECTION 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (NAU)

SECTION 01 33 16 DESIGN AFTER AWARD (NAU)

SECTION 01 35 26 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL (NAU)

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

SECTION 01 45 05 CONTRACTOR SITE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (NAU)

SECTION 01 45 10 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 27-May-2021 01:00 PM to 03-Jun-

2021 01:00 PM.

The number of offeror copies required 1 has been added.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

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 the Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Agencies located on DoD installations or in support of defense operations within the EUCOM and AFRICOM AORs, and Israel.

B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District (NAU) has a mission to provide Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) design and 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 (DBB) and

Design-Build (DB) construction projects in EUCOM and AFRICOM AORs, and Israel. These requirements are often time-critical and of a highly sensitive nature.

Offerors must be able to comply with all SCIF construction regulation. Below is a list of the minimum regulations that may be used in the course of this MATOC.

1. Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities VERSION IC Tech Spec – for ICD/ICS 705

2. STC 45 and STC 50

3. TEMPEST (when required)

4. NSA Specification 65-6 and 73-2a

5. NACSIM 5230

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 the EUCOM and AFRICOM AORs, and Israel. 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 (DB) or design-bid-build (DBB) 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 the EUCOM and AFRICOM AORs and Israel.

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 only 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. 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 will not be approved. Accordingly, subcontractors will be submitted and approved on a task order by task order basis.

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 to a target of five (5) 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 $97,000,000.

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 will 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 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 a target of five (5) offerors 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.

Award may be made to fewer than or greater than five (5) Offerors at the Government’s discretion. The Government will utilize the Best-Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection for this MATOC in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. The five (5) factors for evaluation include: Factor 1: Past Performance of Construction Projects, Factor 2: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of the Architect-Engineering Team, Factor 3: Management Approach, Factor 4: Seed Project Narrative, and Factor 5: Seed Project Price/Price Schedule. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” and no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors.

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 IAW ICD 705 and Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities VERSION IC Tech Spec – for ICD/ICS 705. In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners as the prime. 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 and 2 are of approximately equal 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 and 2. The Government will select a target of five (5) to move to Phase II.

In Phase II, Offerors ratings for Factors 1, 2 and will advance from Phase I, additionally factors 1 thru 4 will be of approximately equal importance. When combined all non-price factors are approximately equal to price, Factor 5.

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) offerors with a target of five (5) 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 and utilize the seed project pricing as a tradeoff determination. 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 – AE Technical Competency

Phase II:

Factor 3 – Management Approach 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: AE Technical Competency (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 3: Management Approach (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. 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.

EVALUATION RATINGS

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. 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:

c. Technical Rating Definitions.

The following combined technical/risk rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of Factors 2: AE TECHNICAL COMPETENCY 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH, 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

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.

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.

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.

The Government will evaluate each demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation. Then, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality of performance to determine a confidence assessment rating. Projects that are considered to be more relevant will have more influence on the past performance confidence rating.

a. Recency. Projects submitted should be completed within six years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) that are for similar work as that required in this solicitation.

Projects submitted that are beyond six years may be considered, but may be considered less relevant.

b. Relevancy. Firm-fixed-priced contracts that demonstrated the relevant characteristics below will be considered more relevant than cost reimbursement and time and materials type contracts. NOTE: Projects submitted that do not have one or more the qualities considered most relevant (below) will be considered, but the offeror may receive a lower rating for this factor.

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant criteria as possible. For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience in the following:

a. Projects 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. Projects performed Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) listed in order of most relevant to relevant, will be given the most consideration:

c.

i. EUCOM AOR

ii. AFRICOM AOR

iii. Israel

b. Projects demonstrating experience with Design-Build construction;

c. Projects demonstrating experience with Design-Bid-Build construction.

d. Projects demonstrating experience with the initial construction of a permanent Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) that received an initial accreditation by DIA (or other accrediting agency) in compliance with ICD 705 and Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities VERSION IC Tech Spec - for ICD/ICS 705

f. Projects demonstrating experience with repair or replacement of major building systems (electrical, mechanical, structural, etc.)

NOTE: 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: Offerors are cautioned that the Government may assess weaknesses against experience examples that demonstrate one or more of the criteria listed above, that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project.

NOTE: The Offeror as the Prime contractor must have performed at least two (2) 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 as the Prime. 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 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, interim or final. 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, MAJ Andrene A. Alexander via email at Andrene.a.alexander@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, mailto:andrene.a.alexander@usace.army.mil 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.

During the best value tradeoff process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

FACTOR 2: AE TECHNICAL COMPETENCY

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. Designer of Record (DOR)s’ experience and performance on SCIF construction projects in compliance with ICD 705.

2. Offerors’ Plan should demonstrate an understanding of certification and registration requirements for design in EUCOM AOR and AFRICOM AORs and Israel, with the ability to comply with ICD 705, Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities VERSION IC Tech Spec – for ICD/ICS 705 and the Construction Security Plan (CSP) in order to ultimately meet SCIF accreditation.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror who demonstrates:

1. Designer of Record (DOR) holding a FCL and/or DOR with designers holding U.S. government secret clearances or higher level clearances. The Offeror will be rated on an adjectival basis. The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the proposal includes the information listed in the submission requirements for this Factor and to the extent that the proposal clearly demonstrates the DOR’s experience in relevant projects and an understanding of the requirements to successfully design a constructible SCIF capable of accreditation. However, the most consideration will be given for SCIF projects completed in the EUCOM and AFRICOM AORs and Israel.

PHASE II

A target of five (5) Offerors 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 selected to move from Phase I to Phase II will be requested to submit proposals for Phase II.

PHASE II - VOLUME I

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Criteria:

The Management Approach will be evaluated as one factor. This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this MATOC. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the US Government as spelled out in the documents and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements. The Offeror’s Management Approach will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution.

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 and compliance with the Construction Security Plan (CSP).

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 plans to comply with ICD/ICS 705 requirements and compliance with the Construction Security Plan (CSP) to achieve accreditation from the accreditation official (AO) in an OCONUS environment.

8. The extend the offeror describes their approach to meeting the security IT requirements in DFARS 252.204-

7012 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber).

PHASE II - VOLUME II

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 may 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 Primavera P6.xer format 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, constraints 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 schedule 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.

Schedule advantages are those identified in this paragraph.

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Offeror shall meet the requirements of this…