amd3.pdf

W912HN-16-R-0008

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

W912HN-16-R-0008 Tw o Phase Design-Build for Company Operations Facility (COF) for the Special Operations Forces (SF) Headquarters at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia.

Only Offerors that submitted a successful offer during Phase I of the evaluation process shall respond to, and acknow ledge this amendment. Offerors must insert a price on all numbered items of the CLIN Schedule issued w ith the Phase I solicitation. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance w ith RFP instructions on August 22, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. EST.

Contract Draw ings File No. 141-85-04 are hereby added. There are no technical specification changes w ith this amendment.

Section 00 21 00 Instructions, Part II Section V is deleted and replaced as indicated on the follow ing page(s).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jul-2016

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-16-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Mar-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Jul-2016

CODE

U.S. 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:

PART II

SECTIO

N 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

PROCURING 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 solicitation is for a firm fixed price (FFP) contract using a Two-Phase Selection Process for the FY15 SOF Company Operations Facility (COF) PN57442 at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the SSEB and the development of the Best Value Decision by the PCO/SSA using the Trade-Off Process IAW FAR 15.101-1. Inasmuch 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-

Phase Design-Build process IAW FAR 36.3 for this project. In Phase I, interested Offerors will submit certain specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.4 In Phase I, 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 price 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 forth 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 PCO that the firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. Only those Offerors selected for Phase II will be provided the technical requirements package.

1.6 Phase I and II Factors:

Phase I:

FACTOR 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience FACTOR 2 - Past Performance.

PHASE II:

FACTOR 3 - This factor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed schedule to complete the project within 540 days of Notice to Proceed.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

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.

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.

2.1 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the solicitation, 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.

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

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

2.4 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/PCO will follow guidance at FAR 14.405 when resolving minor informalities or irregularities. The PCO/SSA 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-16-R-0008_COMPANY NAME_

VOLUME I W912HN-16-R-0008_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 PCO and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Ms.

Julie M. Oliver, whose e-mail address is Julie.M.Oliver@usace.army.mil. The PCO 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-16-R-0008 Due Date of Proposal: 26 Apr 2016 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time)

Title of Project: FY15 SOF COF PN57442 HAAF

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e-mail notification to the Contract Specialist and PCO 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.

3.2 DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING BID BOND: In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee in the solicitation, Offerors are required to submit an original bid bond 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. 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-16-R- 0008 Due Date of Proposal: 22 Aug 2016 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) Title of Project: FY15 SOF COF PN57442 HAAF

Bid Bonds must be addressed to:

U.S, Army Engineer District, Savannah ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Julie M. Oliver) 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.

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.

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.

NOTE: A BID BOND IS NOT REQUIRED IN PHASE I. ONLY OFFERORS

SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN PHASE II WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A

BID BOND.

GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

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

3.4 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.

3.5 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 SOLICITATION, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.

3.6. 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-16-R- 0008_USACE_Volume I.pdf).

3.7 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 design submittals will be done and submitted in the latest version of Micro station format only. Conversions from AutoCAD are discouraged because of the file incompatibility and the added work necessary for the conversion.

3.8 Tabs. See 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 – Representations & Certifications. Offerors must complete and return applicable clauses located in Section 00 45 00 – Representations & Certifications of the solicitation. Offerors are to ensure all information in the System for Award Management (SAM) is up to date and accurate including FAR/DFAR clause fill-in information. Submit verification that your firm is registered in SAM. 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 its 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 E – FACTOR 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience

TAB F – FACTOR 2 - Past Performance

4. PHASE I - FACTOR 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.

4.1.2 For construction team member: 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. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If projects were design-build, Offeror should 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. Submit projects that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

4.1.3 For design team member: Submit projects that are currently fully designed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects do not have to be in construction. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for such as government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, Offeror should identify them. 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. See website for the SF330 at Attachment

4. The Government will evaluate the completed SF330.

4.1.3.1 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.

4.1.3.2 Staffing and Professional Qualifications. In addition to the submission of project examples in accordance with 4.1.2, the proposed Architect-Engineer Firm will provide professional qualifications, experience similar to this procurement (see 4.1.3 and 4.1.4) and professional registration for the following disciplines in Section E of the SF330.

a. Architect (required)

b. Structural Engineer (required)

c. Mechanical (required)

d. Fire Protection Engineer (required)

e. RCDD Communications (required)

f. Acoustical Engineer (required)

4.1.4 Projects submitted under this factor will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, type, scope and magnitude, are at least 25,000 square feet of gross space and cost at least $5,000,000. For example, a similar project is a Company Operations Facility, Company Headquarters Building, Battalion Headquarters Building, or administration office.

4.1.5 The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed five (5) pages, explaining corporate experience that is directly related to the similar features below.

4.1.5.1 Features included in the model(s) in the FTP site below. These models contain fully developed designs, including a Building Information Model (BIM), 2-D CADD files, specifications, and design analysis, and can be downloaded from the following FTP sites:

► FTP://https://mrsi.erdc.dren.mil/cos/standard-designs/

Note: This design is provided as a guide that exemplifies a technically suitable product and incorporates mandatory functional/operational requirements for a similar (although perhaps not an exact) facility to be constructed under this solicitation. In the performance of the awarded contract, it will be left to the Offeror’s discretion if, and how, it will use the sample design provided to satisfy the requirements of this solicitation. This model is not intended to modify or over-ride specific requirements of this solicitation and, under all circumstances, it will be incumbent upon the successful offeror to adhere to the site specific scope and functional/operational requirements specified within the solicitation.

Neither this statement of work, nor the adapt-build model, are intended to diminish the offeror’s responsibilities under the clauses titled “Responsibility of the Contractor for Design,” “Warranty of Design,” and “Construction Role During Design.” The successful offeror shall be the designer-of- record and shall be responsible for the final design and construction product, including but not limited to, adherence to the installation architectural theme, building code compliance and suitability of the engineering systems provided. The government assumes no liability for the model design provided and, to the extent it is used by an offeror. The offeror will be responsible for all aspects of the design as designer-of-record.

4.1.5.2 Sound insulation for conference areas that meet a Noise Criteria (NC) minimum 30 rating in accordance with ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook.

4.1.5.3 HVAC system that include flexibility in zoning to where it can address future changes in occupant densities.

4.1.5.4 Significant Information Technology (IT) operational areas.

4.1.5.5 Automated PA and Mass notification system integrated with phone system.

4.1.5.6 Experience in installing standing seam metal roofs.

4.1.5.7 Experience in constructing buildings with 40' minimum clear spans in any type of facility.

4.1.5.8 Conference and Training Areas.

4.1.5.9 ATFP design and construction experience.

4.1.5.10 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. The projects must be 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.

Narrative should be limited to two (2) pages.

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. The Government will review the construction projects provided by the Offeror for Factor 2 to evaluate the experience of the Offeror with similar projects.

Projects will be evaluated for this factor only if they have been determined to be at least "Somewhat Relevant" as defined in paragraph 5.2.4. This will include the experience of team members, subject to paragraph 4.1.2 and 4.1.4 above. The Government will evaluate the relevance, quality and amount of the offeror's experience. The quantity of relevant experience demonstrated by the Offeror will affect the rating for this Factor. If the Offeror cannot demonstrate relevant experience or the offeror has no relevant experience, the offeror may receive a rating of “unacceptable.”

4.2.2 Rating Methodology for Factor 1. Factor 1 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

4.2.2.1 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.

4.2.2.2 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.

4.2.2.3 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.

4.2.2.4 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.

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

4.2.3 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System). Also, personal knowledge by Government personnel of the Offeror’s performance capability may be utilized. Interviews with Government personnel will be documented. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

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

4.2.5 Previous design-build experience is not necessary. The Government may consider previous design-build experience a strength. 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.

4.2.6 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 - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on recent, relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the offerors or its construction team member to submit to the client for each relevant project submitted. Offeror may submit up to 5 projects for the construction team member. These projects may be the same projects submitted for Factor 1. The 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.

5.1.2 By exception, the client may request, submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact (Contract Specialist), Julie Oliver. Request may be made via email to julie.m.oliver@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 CPARS) will not be considered.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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 may 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.

5.1.3 Offeror shall submit projects that have a minimum value of no less than $5,000,000 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 recent, successfully completed, or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Reference paragraph 5.2.4 for characteristics of relevant projects.

5.1.4 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 solicitation, rather than the u m b r e l l a contract. For purposes of this solicitation, 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.

5.1.5 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. 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. Please note that projects submitted by design firms will not be evaluated in this factor.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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.

5.2.1 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, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. Any interviews with

Government personnel will be documented as necessary.

5.2.2 Other Sources. In additional to the above, the Government may review any 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 (PPIPRS), 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 I-2, Past Performance, and may consider up to five (5) additional ACASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance.

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.

5.2.3 Relevancy Evaluation: Projects will only be evaluated that meet the requirements in paragraph 5.1.2. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders combined to meet the minimum value.

Projects will be evaluated to determine how relevant the project is 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. The characteristics identified below are not intended to be a comprehensive list of characteristics similar to this project. However, projects that meet the criteria in 5.1.2 and that also include the characteristics below may be considered more relevant. The project description in Section 4 of the PPQ should identify similar characteristics of the projects such as:

5.2.3.1 Sound insulation for conference areas that meet a Noise Criteria (NC) minimum 30 rating in accordance with ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook.

5.2.3.2 HVAC system that include flexibility in zoning to where it can address future changes in occupant densities.

5.2.3.3 Significant Information Technology (IT) operational areas.

5.2.3.4 Automated PA and Mass notification system integrated with phone system.

5.2.3.5 Experience in installing standing seam metal roofs.

5.2.3.6 Experience in constructing buildings with 40' minimum clear spans in any type of facility.

5.2.3.7 Battalion Headquarters/Maintenance Facility, Administrative/Warehouses or Corporate Administrative Headquarters.

5.2.3.8 Conference and Training Areas.

5.2.3.9 ATFP design and construction experience.

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.

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 5.2.5.

5.2.5 Confidence Ratings:

5.2.5.1 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.

5.2.5.2 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.

5.2.5.3 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.

5.2.5.4 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.

5.2.5.5 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.

6. PHASE I - PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation.

6.1 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.

6.2 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 a confidence rating in sufficient detail to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

6.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the PCO/SSA. The PCO/SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will be selected to participate in Phase II.

6.4 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.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PHASE I FACTORS

Factor 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience is less important than Factor 2 - Past Performance.

Factor 2 - Past Performance is more important than Factor 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience.

PHASE II REQUIREMENTS:

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

8.1 VOLUME I—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 and Directions for Submitting Bid Bond at 3.2. 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.

8.2 VOLUME II—TECHNICAL

8.2.1 PHASE II TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FACTOR 3: SCHEDULE: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s schedule to complete the project within 540 days from receipt of Notice to Proceed.

8.2.2 FACTOR 3: SCHEDULE: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s schedule to complete the project within 540 days from receipt of Notice to Proceed.

8.2.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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

8.2.2.3 The summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a final schedule as required by Section 001320: Project Schedule. The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedule shall be graphically represented.

8.2.2.4. Provide a narrative, describing the design packaging plan for separate design packages, based on the offeror’s plan for fast tracking. Describe all design and construction to be “fast-tracked.” If long lead item equipment must be ordered prior to completion of a design phase, describe the requirement in the narrative and show the required ordering date in the schedule.

8.2.2.5 Show the design phase, including events associated with coordinating the interim and final design submittals for each package and the proper handling of the review comments for each design package.

8.2.2.6 Show the overall construction phase for the facility, for the site work, and for utilities. Show fast track starts for design packages but it isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of each facility, site work and utilities.

8.2.2.7 Show turnover of the facility. The time to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

8.2.2.8 Show as-built submissions.

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

8.2.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for integrated design and construction. The length of the schedule must match the contract duration. If it is shorter than the contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. All field overhead costs are to be included in the contract price for the full contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting (see Section 01010), long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government will evaluate the design packaging plan for logic, reasonableness, how it facilitates meeting the contract duration and how it facilitates the Government’s ability to timely perform its design reviews.

The packaging plan should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination for reviews. For example, is the footing and foundation plan based on adequate design for building loads; etc.? A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction may receive additional consideration.

9.1 Phase II Evaluation Standards. Phase II will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions with combined Technical/Risk Ratings.

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

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

9.1.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse…