W912HN-15-R-0006-0003__SF30.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

A. CONTRACT CHANGES: PPQ forms corrected, corrected tab lettering under the general contstruction tab paragraph 2.2, and changed section 00600 to 004500. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: There are no technical specification changes w ith this amendment.

C. CONTRACT DRAWINGS: There are no draw ing changes w ith this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 55

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Mar-2015

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-15-R-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Feb-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Mar-2015

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

K6P0000 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-15-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

NOTES TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00 21 00

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 Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 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,) 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 Construction nature. A project requiring use of civil funds is not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 01 00 00 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) 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 the Two (2) Phase Design Build Process. In Phase I of the II phase design-build selection procedure, interested Offerors will submit specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.4 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select up to eight (8) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase II.

1.5 In Phase II of this process, the Government will evaluate both technical capability and price.

1.6 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. The Government intends to announce the names of Offerors selected for Phase II in the FEDBIZOPS website. An Offeror that does not want this information released must provide a written notification and explanation of its objections to release of the information. Those Offerors selected for Phase II will be provided the technical requirements package for a Seed Task Order that may be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

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 ED.

2.3 If applicable, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. For 8(a) set-aside procurements, all prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 124.513. For HUBZone set- aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference in favor of qualified HUBZone SBCs, a Joint Venture must comply with 13 CFR 126.616. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab DE.

2.4 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), 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 D.

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

2.6 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 Electronic Matter Submissions. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format.

Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN-15-R-0006_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912HN-15-R-0006_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Submit the Price and Technical proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/welcome.aspx. At the AMRDEC SAFE website, select the link: I do not have a CAC or this machine is not configured to read my CAC and I would like to access SAFE as a Guest User, to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s). [Note:

It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.]

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter email addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Mea Floyd, whose email address is Meawonna.Floyd@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Mr. Chad Arnett, whose email address is chad.a.arnett@usace.army.mil. These email addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your email address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

Proposal Due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN-15-R-0006 Due Date of Proposal: 30 March 2015 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern time) Title of Project: Fort Bragg MATOC

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late.

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

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

3.4 Proposal Formatting. Proposals shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages 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.

TECHNICAL MATTERS: Submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) at least 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to receipt of proposals.

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this Request for Proposal contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound; immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to award this Request for Proposal based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via e-mail, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on the FedBizOps in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

W912HN-15-R-0006

Fort Bragg General Construction MATOC Bidder Inquiry Key: NS6VIA‐8FPMPD

Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, E-mail, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 1 through 3: same as above.

4. E-mail. Enter the e-mail address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking for the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed, you are logged into the system.

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

PHASE I – 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 – Section 004500 – Representations and Certifications Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 0010-Schedule A.

TAB C – 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 D – Teaming Agreement and Narrative, if applicable. See paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

TAB E – 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.

PHASE I – VOLUME II

TAB D –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB F – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB G – FACTOR 2 Design Experience

4. PHASE I – TAB F — FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience 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 construction 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 (Contract Specialist), Mea Floyd. Request may be made via email to Meawonna.Floyd@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance no later than five (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, or UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror’s 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 a project. Additional project information attached to the PPQ will not be evaluated.

Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS) 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 PPQs submitted on other procurements provided they are on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form.

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 or design build.

The Offeror may include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years for only 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 4.2.2. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract.

4.1.2. Offeror shall submit projects that have a minimum value of no less than $500K each and that demonstrate experience similar to the various requirements described in paragraph 1 (Description of Work) in the Scope of Work. Projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy. Please note that projects submitted by design firms will not be evaluated in this factor. Design firms shall submit projects in accordance with the requirements in Factor 2.

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. 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. If an Offeror submits more than eight (8) total project examples, only the first eight (8) will be evaluated. 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 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.

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.

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 The past performance and experience 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 and experience 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 and experience, focusing on performance and experience 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 if the projects are relevant and how they compare 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.

4.2.3 Offerors may increase the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) level of confidence by demonstrating Previous Teaming between Prime and Major Construction Subcontractors or Previous Teaming between Prime and Prime AE Firm. This experience may be deemed more highly favorable.

4.2.4. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if 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. This experience may be deemed more highly favorable.

4.2.5. The SSEB may have a greater degree of confidence in Offerors who demonstrate successful performance in a wide variety of the kinds of work described in paragraph 1 (Description of Work). Conversely, the SSEB may have a lower degree of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited to one or two particular kinds of work among the many described in paragraph 1 (Description of Work).

4.2.6. Offerors may increase the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) level of confidence by demonstrating self performance of airfield maintenance & construction by their company. This experience may be deemed more highly favorable.

4.2.7. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value. In addition the government will not consider IDIQ type contracts; Offerors must submit individual task orders that can meet the requirements of 4.1.2.

4.2.8. Relevancy. Projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the information provided in the project’s description in block 4 of the PPQ. With respect to relevancy, more positive past performance experience on relevant projects will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment. Past performance ratings on projects that are not relevant will not be considered.

4.2.9. Confidence Assessment. The past performance history and experience record (based on the Scope of Work in paragraph 1 (Description of Work) will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects. See paragraphs 4.2.3 thru 4.2.6 - for other factors that will be considered in reaching a confidence assessment.

4.2.10. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience 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 and CCASS/CPARS 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.

4.2.11. The Government will consider past performance and experience of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance and experience of the unit or division submitting the offer. The Government may also consider the past performance and experience information submitted on any other team member. However, the consideration and weight given to past performance and experience information concerning team members 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 and experience information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the projects submitted or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required may not be considered. Further, the consideration and weight given to past performance and experience information concerning team members other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of the proposed involvement of the team member in the performance of this contract. If it is not clear that the team member will not perform a significant role in the performance of this contract, past performance information for that team member may be given less consideration and weight. 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.

4.2.12. 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 and experience. These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance and experience 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/CPARS ratings on relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor and may consider up to five (5) additional CCASS/CPARS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance for any team member.

4.2.13. The Government will consider the relevant past performance and experience information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance and experience on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 4.2.15.

4.2.14. If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record and experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

4.2.15. Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

4.2.15.1. SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record and experience, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.15.2. SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record and experience, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.15.3. LIMITED CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record and experience, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

5. PHASE I - TAB G - FACTOR 2 - DESIGN EXPERIENCE.

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS: The Offeror’s Designer shall demonstrate its capability to perform design work as might be 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. Staffing and Professional Qualifications. In Section E of the SF330, provide professional qualifications (appropriate education, experience and professional registration). At a minimum, Offerors must provide:

a. Architect (required)

b. Civil Engineer (required)

c. Mechanical Engineer (required)

d. Electrical Engineer (required)

Offeror should also provide:

a. Sub-Professional Architect

b. Topographic Surveyor

5.1.2. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. Offerors must submit project examples demonstrating 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 thru 4.2.5. No more than eight (8) 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. If an Offeror submits more than eight

(8) total project examples, only the first eight (8) projects will be evaluated. Project descriptions shall be annotated in Section F of the SF330 and shall not exceed one (1) page. If more than one page is submitted only the first page will be considered. Projects must be at least 50% design progress completed or 100% design completion within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

5.1.2.1. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value. In addition the government will not consider IDIQ type contracts; Offerors must submit individual task orders that can meet the requirements of 4.1.2.

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 U.S. 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. Capability of seal designs in North Carolina;

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

Government notification;

e. Prepare design files in (*.dgn) format

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. 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. Offerors do not have to include all of the disciplines in 5.1.1 except those that are identified as required; however, Offerors that provide all of the disciplines may be more highly rated.

5.2.2. 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.

5.2.3. 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, seal designs, report to the construction site within 48 hours of Government notification, prepare design files in (*.dgn) format.

5.2.4. Design Experience. 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. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

6.1. NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is more important than Factor 2.

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

7. PHASE I – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

7.1. 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.

7.2. 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.

7.3. 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 precede to Phase II.

8. PHASE II – PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase II proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

PHASE II – VOLUME I – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE PROPOSAL

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.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00010—Schedule A (including Sample Task Order Pricing)

TAB C – Bid Bond – In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, Offerors are required to submit an original bid bond, for Phase II only, in accordance with these instructions and by the time and date established for the receipt of proposals. The Bid Guarantee shall be 20% of the bid price or $3 Million, whichever is less. Bid bonds must be submitted in original form and contain original signatures. Photocopied, facsimile, scanned or otherwise mechanically reproduced bid bonds will not be accepted. Failure to submit a proper bid bond shall be cause for rejection of an Offeror's proposal.

ELECTRONIC BID BOND SUBMISSION, TO INCLUDE E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE

TRANSMISSIONS IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

HANDCARRIED BID BOND SUBMISSIONS, except for delivery by Federal Express and United Parcel Service, IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

Bid Bonds must be delivered by U.S. Mail, including U.S. Express Mail, Federal Express or United Parcel Service. All Bid Bonds must be clearly identified with the contractor's name and address. To ensure timely and proper handling, the lower left corner of the outermost wrapper should indicate the following:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN-15-R-0006 Due Date of Proposal: TBD Time by which Proposals are Due: 12:00 P.M. (Eastern time) Title of Project: General Construction MATOC, Fort Bragg NC

Bid Bonds must be addressed:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Mea Floyd) 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, Georgia 31401-3640

The date and time of delivery established by commercial carriers is not the official time of receipt by the Government. Security Guards posted at the loading dock entry for the building do not receive bid bonds and will contact Mailroom personnel. Once Mailroom personnel are available, the bid bonds will be processed by the Security Guards using established security procedures and subsequently picked up by Mailroom personnel.

After receipt by the Mailroom personnel, a record will be made of the receipt of the bid bonds. Completion of these actions will constitute delivery of the bid bonds by the date and time designated for receipt of the bid bonds.

Offerors that use U.S. Mail or U.S. Express Mail must allow sufficient time for the bid bonds to be received by Mailroom personnel by the time specified. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bid bonds to be processed for receipt and are cautioned that sufficient time may be as much as 24 hours prior to the date and time designated. The Government will not be responsible for bid bonds delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that bid bonds are submitted so as to reach the office designated for receipt. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bid bonds to be physically received and processed by Mailroom personnel in accordance with the information provided.

PHASE II – VOLUME II – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

TAB D – FACTOR 3 – Design Technical - Building Function and Aesthetics

TAB E – FACTOR 4 – Design Technical Approach - Quality of Building Systems

9. PHASE II–TAB D — FACTOR 3 – DESIGN TECHNICAL - BUILDING FUNCTION AND

AESTHETICS

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

9.1.1. Presentation Drawings

a. Presentation exterior elevations of each facility clearly noting proposed materials and colors.

b. Presentation interior of the facility clearly noting proposed materials and colors.

c. A color board including primary interior and exterior finish materials.

9.1.2. Technical Approach Narratives.

a. Provide technical approach narratives, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. Preface the narratives with a design concepts narrative, providing the design rationale and basis of the proposal. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives under this -TECHNICAL SECTION shall not exceed eight (8) pages. b.

Architectural Theme and Materials. This narrative shall not exceed two (2) pages.

Describe the architectural themes of the various facilities and spaces which demonstrate how the proposal achieves the results desired by the Statement of Work.

Narrative should address how the selection of materials and colors enhances the exterior and interior aesthetics of the facilities and improves the living and/or working conditions for the soldier populations who will utilize the facilities. This narrative is not intended to be a material listing, but to explain/reflect how the selections were made and how they address the requirements.

9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

9.2.1. FACTOR 3 – DESIGN TECHNICAL - BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS:

The following elements will be evaluated:

9.2.1.1. Do the facilities provide acceptable life safety and fire safety measures?

9.2.1.2. Building Aesthetics: This element considers the overall “appeal” of the facility and the desire that both the interior and exterior of the facilities present a professional, attractive appearance. The following will be considered under this component:

a. Exterior Considerations:

1) Proposals shall be evaluated on design of facades, roof lines, and delineation of entrances, proportions of fenestration in relation to elevations, shade and shadow effects, materials, textures, exterior color schemes.

2) Is the building complimentary of the adjacent structures? Is the building an attractive addition to the installation? How well does the building harmonize with its environment, including surrounding facilities?

b. Interior Considerations:

1) Are the proposed colors and material finishes conducive to the working environment of the facility?

2) For administrative areas, does the interior design provided establish a positive working environment?

3) Has the proposal addressed/provided for natural and artificial light in the living and working spaces and is the arrangement of fenestration and lighting fixtures in the spaces conducive to furniture placement and space usage?

4) Do the proposed ceiling material, elevation, and design enhance the environment?

5) Has “support item” placement been considered and addressed in the proposal to enhance the environment? For example: placement of supply/exhaust devices, placement of electrical panels, and placement of exhaust fans, etc.

6) Does the proposals provide for acoustic control of noise from service/support spaces to administrative areas?

9.2.2. Design Technical - Building Function and Aesthetics. Will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

9.2.2.1. 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.

9.2.2.2. 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.

9.2.2.3. 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.

9.2.2.4. 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.

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

10. PHASE II – TAB E – FACTOR 4 – DESIGN TECHNICAL APPROACH - QUALITY OF

BUILDING SYSTEMS

10.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

a. Presentation Drawings. There are no specific drawings requirements for this TECHNICAL SECTION. However, the Offeror has the option of providing concept level drawing information for specific materials and/or systems which the Offeror feels are necessary to describe the proposed systems or materials.

b. Technical Approach Narratives. Provide technical approach narrative, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. It is acceptable to include all the elements below into a single combined narrative for the entire facility.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that all aspects identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives under this- TECHNICAL SECTION shall not exceed eight (8) typewritten pages:

c. Architectural Finishes: Describe how the materials…