amd1.pdf

W912HN-15-R-0012

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

This amendment corrects Tab lettering issues for Phase I, as w ell as changes to paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.5, 4.2.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.2, and Attachment 5 based on inquiries submitted via Projnet. How ever, please review the amendment in its entirety.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 63

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Oct-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-0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Oct-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

30-Oct-2015

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE.

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION V

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS NOTES:

A SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO PHASE II IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART

OF THE PHASE I PROPOSAL. A PHASE II PROPOSAL WILL BE

REQUESTED FROM ONLY THE OFFERORS SELECTED BY THE

CONTRACTING OFFICER TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PHASE II.

THE PHASE II SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA MAY BE

SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE PHASE II SOLICITATION BEING

ISSUED.

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a firm fixed price (FFP) contract using a two (2) Phase Selection Process for the Pierce Terrace Elementary School Replacement at Fort Jackson, SC.

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 the resulting contract, 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.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two (2) Phase Selection Process for this Design Build project. In Phase I of the two phase design-build selection procedure, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.4 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase II. In Phase II of this process, the Government will evaluate both technical capability and price. The technical and cost proposals of the selected contractors will be reviewed by the Government. The technical information in the Phase II proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria set out in this section. The final evaluation ratings used for comparison, selection, and award will reflect both the ratings received in Phase I and the evaluation ratings received in Phase II.

1.5 Only those Offeror’s who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that the 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 name 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 the contract.

1.6 Outline of Factors per Phase:

Phase I:

FACTOR 1-1 Relevant Specialized Experience

FACTOR 1-2 Past Performance

FACTOR 1-3 Technical Approach Narrative

FACTOR 1-4 Small Business Participation Plan

PHASE II:

PRICE

FACTOR 2-1 Design Technical.

SUB-FACTOR 2-1-1: Building Function and Aesthetics:

SUB-FACTOR 2-1-2: Quality of Building Systems:

SUB-FACTOR 2-1-3: Site Design:

FACTOR 2-2 Key Subcontractors

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 D.

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 D.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Paragraph 3.1 below.

2.5 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Paragraph 3.1 below.

2.6 Other General Review:

Debarred List: Offerors will be checked against the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs. Any Offeror who is listed will be eliminated without further consideration.

Minor Informalities: Proposals will be checked for minor informalities or irregularities. The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer will follow guidance at FAR 14.405 when resolving minor informalities or irregularities. The Source Selection

Authority/Contracting Officer either will give the Offeror an opportunity to cure any defect resulting from a minor informality or irregularity or waive the defect, whichever is to the advantage of the Government.

3. PROPOSALS

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE WEBSITE

LISTED BELOW. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION SENT VIA EMAIL OR FACSIMILE

WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED. HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS NOT

AUTHORIZED.

3.1 DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

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-0012_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME I

W912HN-15-R-0012_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME II

Submit 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 e-mail addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Mr. Andrew K. Page, whose e-mail address is Andrew.K.Page@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Ms. Nina Crow, whose e-mail address is Nina.G.Crow@usace.army.mil. These e-mail 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 the confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

Phase I Proposal Due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN-15-R-0012 Due Date of Proposal: November 10, 2015 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern time)

Title of Project: Pierce Terrace Elementary School Replacement Ft. Jackson, SC

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e-mail 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’ e-mail 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.

GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

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

3.3 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.4 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material 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.

3.5. Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (e.g. W912HN-15-R- 0012_USACE_Volume I.pdf).

3.6 Drawings. For Offerors invited to participate in Phase II, drawings submitted for the proposal may be done with any CADD software available to the Offeror. However, the drawings for 60% and Final design submittals will be done and submitted in the latest version of AutoCadd format only.

3.7 Tabs. See paragraph 10 for Phase II specific tabbing requirements. Phase I 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 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications. For Offerors interested in submitting proposals as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses, you are requested to submit the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Verification Letter verifying that your business has been approved as such and added to the verified Veteran business database at www.VetBiz.gov. The Government reserves the right to rely on other sources to confirm SDVOSB status if the Offeror has not been approved through the VA.

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 Agreements and Narratives, if applicable (See paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3).

PHASE I VOLUME II

TAB D –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB E – FACTOR 1-1 Relevant Specialized Experience

TAB F – FACTOR 1-2 Past Performance

TAB G – FACTOR 1-3 Technical Approach Narrative

TAB H – FACTOR 1-4 - Small Business Participation Plan

4. PHASE I—TAB E—FACTOR 1-1 –RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects.

The prime contractor will use Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The prime contractor shall submit no more than five (5) projects. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. The design firm will submit this information in accordance with 4.1.2 below. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements.

Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, so identify them. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project in Tab D. 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. For construction team member: Submit projects that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. For Design team member: Submit projects that currently fully designed and not necessarily in construction within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

4.1.2 The Offeror shall demonstrate the capability of the design team member 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.

4.1.2.1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. No more than five

(5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire design team, even if the proposed Architect-Engineer Firm represents the combining of two or more companies. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five

(5) will be evaluated. Projects shall be identified in Section F of the SF330.

4.1.2.2 Staffing and Professional Qualifications. In Section E of the SF330, provide professional qualifications, experience similar to this procurement (see

4.1.3 and 4.1.4) and professional registration for the following disciplines:

a. Architect (required)

b. Structural Engineer (required)

c. Mechanical Engineer (required)

d. RCDD Communications (required)

e. Acoustical Engineer (required)

4.1.3 Projects submitted under this factor will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, type, scope and magnitude. For example, a similar project is an elementary, middle or high school, a size of 76,000 square feet of gross space or greater with a value or cost of $19,000,000.

4.1.4 Projects that contain any of the following features contain similar work as that found in this procurement.

4.1.4.1 Public, Private or Government school Facilities preK-12 with 21st century features as outlined below. Other academic type facilities that can demonstrate the below features will be considered.

4.1.4.2 Day-lighting Elements.

4.1.4.3 Acoustical design elements with acoustical consultant involved.

4.1.4.4 High tech wireless communication with audio and web conferencing

4.1.4.5 Significant Information Technology (IT) operational areas

4.1.4.6 Automated PA and Mass notification system integrated with phone system

4.1.4.7 Experience in installing operable partitions of 30' minimum length in any type facility.

4.1.4.8 Experience in constructing buildings with 60' minimum clear spans in any type of facility

4.1.4.9 College/Corporate Cafeteria or Dining Facility

4.1.4.10 ATFP design and construction experience

4.1.4.11 Parking area to accommodate required traffic patterns of loading and unloading high volume of children and special needs children throughout a day.

4.1.5 The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed five (5) pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is directly related to the similar features above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit from this experience. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in Attachment 2 and 3. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build of projects similar to this procurement. For the prime or construction team member, experience on the projects identified through the use of Attachment 3 will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy of the project. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

4.2.2 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or Government appraisal systems or by contacting owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

4.2.3 The relevant experience of key personnel of other than the design firm proposed for this project pursuant to 4.1.2.2. will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

4.2.4 Previous design-build experience is not necessary. The Government may consider previous design-build experience a strength, even if the experience is on different type projects than this project. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project.

4.2.5 If the Offeror cannot provide information concerning recent, relevant experience on similar projects or the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of experience presents to the Government and the Offeror will be given an appropriate rating for this factor.

5. PHASE I—TAB F—FACTOR 1-2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. The Offeror and its design team 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. Offerors may submit up to 5 projects for the construction team member and 5 projects for the design team member. These projects may be the same projects submitted for Factor 1-1. 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 (Contract Specialist), Andrew Page. Request may be made via email to Andrew.K.Page@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 the 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 a project. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS /ACASS/CPARS) 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 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 5.1.2 and 5.2.2. 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.

5.1.2. Offeror shall submit projects with a minimum value of no less than $19,000,000 and demonstrate new construction work. Projects shall be similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. For construction team member: Submit projects that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. For Design team member:

Submit projects that currently fully designed and not necessarily in construction within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. Projects that meet this criterion will be evaluated on how relevant they are compared to the effort to be acquired through this procurement. Reference paragraph 5.2.2 for specific characteristics of relevant projects.

5.1.3. 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 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 Contractor Team Arrangement as defined in paragraph 2.2 above, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) 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.

5.1.4 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.

5.1.5 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.

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

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 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.

5.2.2 Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must have the minimum value of $19,000,000 and demonstrate new construction type work as referenced in paragraph 5.1.2.

Projects that meet the criteria in 5.1.2 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 5.1.2 and that also include the criteria 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 Schools, Kindergarten through Grade 12, or other academic type facilities Projects with the following features:

30’ or greater open spans with operable walls.

Acoustical design elements with acoustical consultant involved.

High tech wireless communication with audio and web conferencing.

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

5.2.4 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.

5.2.5 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, CPARS, 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.

5.2.6 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor (or the prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) and the design firm.

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 2.3, 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.

5.2.7 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 1-2, Past Performance, and may consider up to five (5) additional ACASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance.

5.2.8 Confidence Assessment. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects. 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 5.2.10.

5.2.9 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).

5.2.10 Confidence Ratings

5.2.11.1 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.

5.2.11.2 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.

5.2.11.3 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.

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

5.2.11.5 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.

TAB G - FACTOR 1-3: TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

7. PHASE I—TAB G—FACTOR 1-3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: This information considers the Offeror’s intended technical approach to design and construction of the type school specified in the RFP.

Limit the submission to ten (10) pages or less, clearly describing the technical approach to execution of the contract. Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first ten pages. At a minimum the narrative should respond to the questions, or address the topics, outlined below:

7.1.1 Does the Offeror’s team demonstrate an understanding of the design-build process, i.e. a design and construction proposal that meets the RFP requirements while still meeting the funding constraints identified.

7.1.2 Does the Offeror demonstrate a suitable understanding of the process to enable it to adequately address and anticipate the risks and plan how to minimize risk within the Design/Build processes?

7.1.3 Identify and explain the roles and responsibilities of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of both the design and construction phases. Also, include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor

7.1.4 How does the Offeror continue the design phase of the project and incorporate User comments and reviews into the process?

7.1.5 Briefly describe the Offeror’s Design Quality Control Program.

7.1.6 What is the design team’s involvement throughout the construction period?

7.1.7 How does the Offeror integrate construction subcontractors into the design process?

7.1.8 What are the Offeror’s processes for handling construction and design problems?

7.1.9 Describe the Offeror’s implementation plans to utilize “fast track” procedures on this project whereby preliminary site construction activities can begin prior to 100% completion of the design documents.

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of the design-build process and its capability to execute an awarded contract.

8. PHASE I – TAB H – FACTOR 1-4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1 Small Business Participation Plan: ALL Offerors, regardless of size status, are required to address two elements: (1) planned small and small disadvantaged business usage for this procurement, and (2) past history of using small and small disadvantaged businesses on any type projects during the last 3 years.

8.1.2 Planned Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Usage for this Procurement.

All Offerors are required to provide a narrative discussion of no more than two (2) pages addressing their corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small and small disadvantaged businesses in the performance of this contract. All narratives should address the Offeror's commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small and small disadvantaged businesses.

8.1.3 All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of the proposed acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs) Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and, when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/ Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern along with the estimated percentage each subcontracted portion is in relation to the overall project. Identification of the names of specific subcontractors is not required for the small business utilization evaluation;

however, successful Offerors will ultimately be required to name subcontractors as a part of their subcontracting plan submission. Using the template provided in Attachment 5, provide the above stated information. The Offeror with higher percentages for Small Business participation will receive a higher rating than the Offeror who has lower percentages. Submission shall be limited to the Attachment 5, in addition to the two (2) page narrative.

(Example: Demolition Work- 10% of total work effort- SDVOSB identified)

8.1.4 Past History of Using Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses as Subcontractors. Provide a description of the Offeror’s demonstrated small business achievements in the various small and small disadvantaged businesses areas on no more than five (5) completed projects during the past three (3) years. Information about each project shall be limited to one (1) page. For each project, Offerors should provide a brief project description, dollar magnitude of the project, location, and the percentage of total work that was subcontracted to small businesses, identifying specific Small Business categories used on each project. For this submission, large businesses may submit no more than one (1) page of information pertaining to their goals and actual accomplishments under approved Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.2.1 All Offerors, regardless of size, will be evaluated in these two elements and must submit the information requested. In element (1), all Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to small business participation in the performance of this contract. The Offeror’s percentage of work committed to small business will be evaluated. The minimum Goals for this procurement are: Small Business:20% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):2% of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB):2% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business:2% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):2%of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB):1% of the total contract value.

In element (2), the Offerors will be evaluated on past utilization of small businesses by assessment of their records and other information. The work performed directly by a small business prime contractor (Offeror) will be considered as small business participation under element (1) and as small business past utilization under element (2).

An Offeror must demonstrate a good faith effort and past commitment to the utilization of small business concerns.

8.2.2 The Government will evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 8.1.2, in conjunction with the information submitted on Attachment 5. The Government will also evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 8.1.4. Those narratives with greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments provided said details clearly demonstrate Offeror’s historical achievement of proposed goals. The utilization of small businesses in the performance of relevant projects submitted for Factor 1-2, Past Performance, will be given more weight in the evaluation of this factor.

9. Factor Evaluation Standards. Factors 1-1, 1-3 and 1-4 will be rated using the adjectival descriptions as stated in below.

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

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

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

MARGINAL - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated 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.

UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

10. PHASE I PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

10.1 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.

10.2 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.

10.3 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 participate in Phase 2.

10.4 No proposal which receives a rating of Unacceptable on any one factor will be selected to participate in Phase II regardless of the total number of proposals received.

10.5 Offeror’s are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase I submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offeror’s should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase I.

11. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PHASE I FACTORS

Factor 1-1, Relevant Specialized Experience is equal in importance to Factor 1-2, Past Performance.

Factor 1-2, Past Performance is equal in importance to Factor 1-1, Relevant Specialized Experience.

Factor 1-3, Technical Approach Narrative is less important than Factor 1-1 or 1-2.

Factor 1-4: Small Business Participation Plan is the least important factor.

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

12.1 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 agreement. Failure to do so may result in rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00—Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

TAB C – Bid Bond—submit in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

This item is not rated. However, the Government will review the bid bond for legal sufficiency. Any bid bond found to be legally insufficient may render an offer ineligible for award.

Phase II Proposal & Bid Bond Due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No:…