AMD1.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

Solicitation W912HN-12-R-0030 is hereby amended to reflect the changes as outlined on the next page.

POC: Amy S. Rivers 912-652-5900

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 48

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Aug-2012

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 W912HN-12-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jul-2012

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 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

03-Aug-2012

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAVANNAH D

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31402

W912HN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-12-R-0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMD 1

A. CONTRACT CHANGES:

1. The Pre-proposal Site Visit has been relocated to The Ft. Benning Hospital Office, Main Conference Room, 6631 Bass Road, Ft. Benning GA 31905. Drawing/Sketch to meeting location attached. Office number is 706-660-5449. The time and date (07 August 2012 at 1300) will remain the same.

2. Section 00100, Tab F has been revised. A Bid Guarantee is required for the SEED Task Order as well as the letter from the Surety’s Office confirming bonding capabalities.

3. FAR Clause, 52.236-27 SITE VISIT, has been revised to coincide with what is stated in the SOW for the SEED Task Order.

4. Section 00100, Paragraph 1.3 has been revised to remove “coefficient” pricing.

B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: The revised and added section listed below (Revised and Added by Amendment No. 0001) are hereby added to and made a part of the solicitation. Revised or added information is underlined and deleted information is struck out.

Revisions can be located in the appropriate volume of specifications by searching for an asterisk and amendment number (i.e., *1).

Revised Section Added Section

33 11 00 Section 00800 Drainage Report Geotechnical Report Map to Site visit

C. CONTRACT DRAWINGS: Sheets C-103, C-104, C-200 C-503 dated 31 July 2012 are hereby added to and made a part of the contract drawings.

NOTE: Draft foundations and modular trailer layout plans (plans by MMG) ARE BEING

PROVIDED TO BIDDERS FYI ONLY. THE SUPPLY OF THE MODULAR CLASSROOM

TRAILER WILL BE PROVIDED VIA SEPARATE CONTRACT.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) under which task orders for General Construction are expected to be issued with work primarily at Ft. Benning; however, work may also be performed at other Federal Facilities located within the geographic boundaries of the US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi.) Work may also be performed at other Federal Facilities outside the above-stated geographical boundary on an excepted basis as determined by the Contracting Officer. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and may be either of a Construction or Design/Build nature. A project requiring use of civil funds is not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 00010 for the complete scope of the anticipated contract to be awarded under this RFP.)

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, and task orders issued there under, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract and task orders issued thereafter.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize a Best Value Trade-off Process. In this process, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals in conjunction with pricing (including mark-ups) on the Schedule B for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for performance of this contract, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A design firm or construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab E.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab E.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.5 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Printed Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper printed in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated. A single 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet with written material on one side only shall constitute one page. However, if both sides of the sheet bear written material then this single sheet shall be counted as two pages.

3.4 Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

3.5 Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit a hard copy of the original Volume I and a hard copy of the original Volume II. Offerors SHALL also submit five (5) additional hard copies of Volume II with one (1) electronic copy of Volume II on a CD. Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide the requisite number of copies may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal. Failure to provide any copies of Volume I or Volume II may result in the Offeror’s proposal being eliminated.

3.6 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror.

Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00010—Schedule B.

TAB C - Section 00600 – Representations and Certifications. For Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses, you must submit the Department of Veteran Affairs Verification Letter verifying that your business has been approved as such and added to the verified Veteran business database at www. VetBiz.gov.

TAB D – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included.

The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB E – Teaming Agreement and Narratives, if applicable. See paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3.

TAB F - Bid Bond—The Offeror shall submit a bid bond for the SEED Task order. Reference FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20% of the bid price or $3M, whichever is less. A Bid Bond will be required for all subsequent task orders. The Offeror is also required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. If the letter and/or bid guarantee is found to be insufficient, it may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable.

TAB G –Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

VOLUME II

TAB E –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB H– FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB I – FACTOR 2 Design Experience

TAB J – FACTOR 3 Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

4. TAB H—FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on recent relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact, Amy S. Rivers. Request may be made via email to amy.s.rivers@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance not later than 5 business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, UPS). If PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and shall contain enough information to determine relevancy of each project. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS /ACASS) will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may submit PPQ submitted on other procurements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project; 3) Contract Number; 4) Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation; 5) Scheduled completion date; and 6) Indicate if the project was design-bid-build, design build or CMS at Risk.

The offeror may include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years only for the projects submitted, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Performance recognition documents shall not exceed eight (8) documents for the entire team.

Offerors should identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.2. Offeror shall submit recent projects with a minimum value of no less than $5 Million dollars and demonstrate new vertical construction or renovation work. To be considered recent, the project must be successfully completed, or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet the criteria described above will be evaluated on how relevant they are compared to the effort to be acquired through this procurement. (see paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.4).

4.1.3 Offerors shall submit no more than eight (8) PPQs (Attachment 3) . Project information shall be limited to the PPQ. Additional project information attached to the PPQ will not be evaluated. If PPQs for more than eight (8) are submitted, only the first eight (8) PPQs in the proposal will be considered. Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the instant task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement as defined in paragraph 2.2 above, no more than eight (8) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

4.1.4 If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.5 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.1.6 The experience and/or past performance of individuals will NOT be considered under this factor.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 Relevancy Evaluation: Projects that meet the criteria in 4.1.2 will be evaluated to determine how relevant the projects are compared to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. Aspects of relevant projects include similarity of scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the Offeror. Projects will be evaluated using, but not limited to, the characteristics identified below. The characteristics identified are not intended to be a comprehensive list. However, projects that meet the criteria in

4.1.2 and the characteristics below may be considered more relevant. The project description in section 4 of the PPQ shall include the characteristics of the projects.

- Design Build experience

- Previous teaming experience

- Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (ATFP)

- Large Renovation projects:

10,000 SF or more that involved complete gutting and reconfiguring of existing building(s); or

10,000 SF or more buildings completely refurbished, where interior finishes have been replaced and fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems have been upgraded to code; or

10,000 SF or more historic structure that has had the floor plans successfully rearranged with the majority of their interior walls, finishes, fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems upgraded, while maintaining their exterior historic appearance and finishes.

- New Vertical Construction projects that include at a minimum, a new facility with mechanical, electrical, plumbing and site work.

- The role of the offeror or team member on submitted projects is similar to or more significant than the role the offeror or team member is expected to perform on this contract.

4.2.3 The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value.

4.2.4 Relevancy. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the following Table. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.5 Confidence Assessment. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects.

4.2.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references, ACASS, and CCASS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.2.7 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor and the design firm, (or the prime contractor if design is to be self-performed). If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member. However, in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4, above, the consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles. Past performance information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the project or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required will not be considered. Where the Government views an Offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as affecting the determination of relevancy and the usefulness of the information in determining a confidence rating despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

4.2.8 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance. These 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 proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, 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.

The Government will also consider available CCASS ratings on relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor and may consider up to five (5) additional CCASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance for any team member. The Government will consider available ACASS ratings on all relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under Factor 1, Past Performance, and may consider up to five (5) additional ACASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance.

4.2.9 The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 4.2.11.

4.2.10 If 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 this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

4.2.11 Past Performance Confidence Ratings

4.2.11.1 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.

4.2.11.2 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.

4.2.11.3 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.

4.2.11.4 NO CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.11.5 UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (NEUTRAL) - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. TAB I—FACTOR 2- DESIGN EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS: The Offeror shall demonstrate its capability to perform design work as required under this contract using the Standard Form 330 (SF330). The Offeror is required to complete ALL sections of Part I and Part II of the SF330. Directions for the Standard Form 330 can be found at Attachment 4. The Government will evaluate the completed

SF330.

5.1.1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. No more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire A-E team, even if the proposed Architect-Engineer

Firm represents the combining of two or more companies. Projects must be at least 50% design progress completed or successfully completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects shall be identified in Section F of the SF330. These projects should demonstrate experience and technical competence in the design of projects containing the criteria for relevant projects with regards to dollar value and type of work specified in paragraph 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.4.

5.1.2 Staffing and Professional Qualifications. In Section E of the SF330, provide professional qualifications (appropriate education, experience and professional registration) for the following disciplines:

a. Architect (required)

b. Sub-Professional Architect

c. Civil Engineer (required)

d. Mechanical Engineer

e. Electrical Engineer

f. Topographic Surveyor and Crew

5.1.3 Design Standards and Practices. The Architect-Engineer Firm must submit a narrative, using Section H of the SF330. Section H of the SF330 shall not exceed two (2) pages. This two (2) page narrative shall demonstrate the firm’s capability to perform the following:

a. Sustainable development and design based on the US Green Building Council’s LEED

Green Build Reference Guide, and;

b. Comply with the state building codes and the military base installation design guides;

c. Seal designs;

d. Attend meetings; perform site visits and surveys at the installations within 48 hours of Government notification;

e. Prepare design files in (*.dgn) formats and BIM Model and associated Facility Data files in Bentley Systems BIM platform

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. The Government will evaluate all information available to determine depth of experience and competence. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals if the points of contacts are not available.

5.2.2 Staffing and Professional Qualifications. The Government will evaluate the proposed staffing and qualifications of the staffing. Lack of staffing or qualifications may result in lack of efficiency and delays in accomplishment of work when engineering disciplines must be added to accomplish design. With the exception of the Architect and Civil Engineer disciplines, which must be included, Offerors do not have to include all the disciplines listed in paragraph 5.1.2;

however, Offerors that provide all of the disciplines may be more highly rated.

5.2.3 Design Standards and Practices. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to design based on the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED criteria, comply with applicable building codes and installation design guides, prepare seal designs, report to the construction site within 48 hours of Government notification, prepare design files in *.dgn formats and BIM Model and associated Facility Data files in Bentley Systems (BIM) platform.

5.2.4. Factor 2 Evaluation Standards. Factor 2 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. The information in the SF330 must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below.

5.2.4.1 OUTSTANDING - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

5.2.4.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

5.4.3.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

6. TAB J – FACTOR 3 PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE.

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 Submit a preliminary summary level schedule for construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab J.

6.1.2 The summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a final schedule as required by Section 01 32 01: Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the milestone dates, sequence and duration for the following activities as a minimum: 1) Notice to Proceed, 2) Design Completion, 3) Erosion Control, 4) Erosion Control Permit, 5) Clearing and Grubbing, 6) Utilities, 7) Concrete Placement, 8) BOD, 9) Close-Out, 10) Submittal Reviews and 11) As-Builts. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of choice. However, regardless of the method used, it shall be clearly identified and schedules shall be graphically represented. (CONTRACT NUMBER W912HN---00-0000) PAGE NUMBER

6.1.3 Show the overall construction phase for the facility foundation, site work, and utilities.

Show fast track starts for design packages. It is not necessary to show detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of the facility foundation, site work and utilities.

6.1.4 Show turnover for the facility site. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time to complete the facility site and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

6.1.5 Show as-built submissions (See section 01 78 02).

6.1.6 Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria

6.2.1 Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror, to complete the entire items of work, including any awarded optional items ready for use. The period of performance shall not exceed 240 calendar days after receipt of notice to proceed. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. An offer which proposes a contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration may receive a more favorable rating provided proposed duration is realistic, deemed achievable and is fully supported

6.2.2 Summary schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for construction.

The length of the schedule must match the proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. All field overhead costs are to be included in the contract price for the full proposed contract duration. The contractors shall use a five day work week for scheduling purposes. 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 (see Section 01 10 00), long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating, materials, submittals, and 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 submital reviews. The schedule should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination for reviews.

A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction may receive additional consideration. The schedule shall include but it is not limited to the following milestones:

(Award, NTP, Entitlements-permitting, Site Work, Final Signoff / Turnover).

6.2.4. Factor 3 Evaluation Standards. Factor 3 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

6.2.4.1 OUTSTANDING - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

6.2.4.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

6.4.3.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

7.1 NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is more important than FACTOR 2 and significantly more important than FACTOR3.

FACTOR 2: DESIGN EXPERIENCE. This factor is less important than FACTOR 1 and more important than Factor 3.

FACTOR 3: PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE. This factor is significantly less important than Factor 1 and less important than Factor 2.

7.2 PRICE: All non-cost factors, when combined, are equally important to Price.

8. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

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

The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

8.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will receive the contract award.

9. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

10. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

11. PRICE.

11.1 Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract.

Prices and mark-ups shall be proposed and submitted on the Task Order Pricing Schedule shown at Section 00010—Schedule B of the solicitation.

11.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute task orders at the price proposed. A price analysis will be performed on Schedule B in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in making this analysis. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable or reflects a lack of understanding of the work and ability to execute task orders at the price proposed will be rendered ineligible for contract award.

11.3 The Government shall use the total proposed price to include options , if applicable, as the evaluated price for making the best value determination of the Seed Task Order. Award of the Seed Task Order cannot be made if the price exceeds the construction cost limitation.

12. BASIS FOR AWARD

12.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria and responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

12.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP will be conducted, and in turn, the Government will compare proposals to one another. The Government will award up to, but no more than, five (5) contracts to those responsible Offerors whose technical submittal and price proposal for the Seed Task Order and binding overhead rates contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government. Out of this pool selected for MATOC award, the Government will once again consider the technical submittal, the relative importance of the factors and price proposal and compare those proposals to one another. The Offeror whose proposal provides the best “overall” value to the Government, among those selected for contract award as part of the MATOC, will also be awarded the Seed Task Order project utilized in the evaluation process.

12.3 In accordance with FAR 52.316-22, the successful Offerors that are not awarded the Seed Task Order will be awarded a contract for the minimum guarantee of $2,500.00.

12.4 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

12.5 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s). The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

12.6 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

ATTACHMENT 1

TAB D

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Fort Benning Design/Build Construction MATOC

1. Offeror:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CCASS) Tax ID #

Please include name, address, and DUNS number of any proposed team members as defined in paragraph 2.2 of the RFP. (Note: Information regarding the nature of team associations and such should NOT be included here. IAW Section 00100, paragraph 2.2 provide at Tab E.)

Team Member:

Team Member:

Team Member:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.]

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

TAB H

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY SHEET

Fort Benning Design/Build Construction MATOC

The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project;

3) Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation; 4) Scheduled completion date;

and 5) Indicate if the project was design-bid-build, design build or CMS at Risk.

No.

Project Name

Contractor

Contract# Construction % Complete @ Time of Solicitation

Scheduled

Completion Date

Design Build or

Design Bid Build or CMS at Risk?

ATTACHMENT 3

TAB H

(adobe fillable format available for first two pages of this questionnaire As a separate attachment)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

1. 7. Date

Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE

OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE

WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR

FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ATTACHMENT 3, TAB H

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from…