amd1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Refer to Block 14 Continuation Page Below

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 35

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jun-2018

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 W912HN18R3005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-May-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Jun-2018

CODE

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN18R3005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes:

1) Internal Issuing Office has been updated, but does not affect the Solicitation in anyway.

2) The PPQ form provided as a separate attachment with the original solicitation shall be omitted. Offerors shall utilize the PPQ form provided as Attachment 3 within the Solicitation.

3) All further changes noted below are made in red font, and all deletions are struck through and red font as well.

a) Section 00 21 00, tables throughout have been numbered.

b) Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.6 was added.

c) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3.5, Tab E was revised to provide clarification in the submittal of a Financial Documents and the Surety Letter.

d) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3.5 was corrected to reflect the correct tab orders from Tabs

G, H, I to Tabs F, G, H.

e) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 4.1.1, The Contract Specialist contact information was updated.

f) Section 00 21 00. Paragraph 4.1.2 was updated to clarify the requirements.

g) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 6.1 was changed to state "minimum construction value of no less than $3 million" to reflect the correct project minimum.

h) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 7 was updated to clarify the importance of each of the

Factors.

i) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 14.5 was deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE.

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

to

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION V

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) under which task orders for General Construction are expected to be issued for projects within the three state region of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Work contemplated on this MATOC may be conducted for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard and Reserve Components, and other Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Agencies located on DoD installations and those in support of other Federal and Department of Defense operations. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and may be either for Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build General Construction.

A project requiring use of civil funds is not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 01 11 00 for the complete scope of the anticipated contract to be awarded under this

RFP.)

1.2 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Process. In Phase One of the Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedure, interested Offerors will submit specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.3 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase Two.

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

1.5 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase Two proposal. Those Offerors selected for Phase Two will be provided the technical requirements package for a Seed Task Order that will be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

1.6 Evaluations of both Phase One and Phase Two will be utilized for final selections.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit a Proposal. The requirement will be advertised as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.

2.2 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. Only exceptions to this is that the designer of record will be evaluated in Factor 3.

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in the schedule of the Notes to Offererors section of Standard Form 1442.

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

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR PHASE ONE:

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

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents.

Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on single sided 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.

3.4 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 (i.e. W912HN18R3005_USACE_VolumeI.pdf).

Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal.

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

VOLUME I

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

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

TAB B – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications.

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 it must also be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for the Designer of Record identified in Factor 3. The Offeror should also submit its Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1, 2.2.

TAB E – Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount. At the discretion of the offeror, the Financial Information may be submitted within the same AMRDEC submission as a separate file or may be submitted as a separate AMRDEC submission. If the Financial Information is not included within Volume 1 within Tab E, the separate file shall be labeled as: W912HN18R3005_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME

I_FINANCIAL_INFORMATION

The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond in Phase One but is required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. Any letter found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Submit originals;

photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable.

The letter must be submitted via hardcopy to the district office to the address below m and must be received no later than the proposal due date and time.

US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District ATTN: CECT-SAS-E – Gregory Graham 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, GA 31401

FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a Bid Bond will be required for each task order.

VOLUME II

TAB D –Joint Venture Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB G F – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB H G – FACTOR 2 Management Approach

TAB I H - FACTOR 3 Design Experience.

4. PHASE ONE – TAB F – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3 at the end of this section. PPQ is provided for the Offeror 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 to ensure timely submittal of completed 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), Crystal North Greg Graham. Request may be made via email to crystal.e.north@usace.army.mil gregory.m.graham@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance no later than five (5) business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, or UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror’s name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and an additional page referenced below and shall contain enough information to determine the similarity and relevancy of a project. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ format (to include CCASS /ACASS/CPARS) will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. Offerors may submit PPQs submitted on other procurements provided they are on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form. Offerors may attach one additional single-sided page (per PPQ) to further describe how the project is similar to the RFP requirements.

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 shall include information for all columns.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in 4.1.2.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, the projects do not have to have been performed by the joint venture submitting the offer. These project could have been performed by either company in the joint venture. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Ensure that the PPQs submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

4.1.2 Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), recent relevant projects that have a minimum value of no less than $3 million each. Projects with similar size, scope, and complexity of the following may be considered relevant projects:

Design-build or design-bid-build construction of Medical Facilities, Headquarters and Operational Facilities, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Administrative & Office Buildings, Educational Facilities, Military Training Facilities, Weapons Training Facilities, Animal Training & Storage Facilities, Religious Facilities, Recreational & Storage Facilities, Dining Facilities, Vehicle Maintenance Facilities, Aircraft Storage Facilities, Air Traffic Control Towers/Facilities, Barracks Buildings, Ranges, and Access Control Points.

At least three of the five projects MUST be Design-Build construction.

All projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy.

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

Design firms shall submit projects in accordance with the requirements in Factor 3.

4.1.3 Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3) in accordance with 4.1.2.

Project information shall be limited to the PPQ and one additional page. 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 is submitting as a Joint Venture, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire JV. 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 played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. Offerors shall submit only projects wherein the Offeror or proposed joint venture members were the prime contractors and played a significant role in the successful completion of the project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.4 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance and experience.

These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance and experience information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers 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. If a CPARS evaluation exists for a submitted project, it will be considered.

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

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

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance and experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance and experience of the unit or division submitting the offer.

4.2.3 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must meet the minimum criteria in paragraph

4.1.2 in order to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value. Projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the description of the project. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not relevant will not be considered.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Rating Definition

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.4 Offerors may increase the Source Selection Evaluation Board”s (SSEB) level of confidence by demonstrating previous experience where the Offeror and the design firm(s) in Factor 3 worked together.

4.2.5 Confidence Assessment:

4.2.5.1 Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they are able to demonstrate successful performance in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 4.1.2. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the project types described in paragraph 4.1.2. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they submit more than three Design-Build projects.

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

4.2.5.3 The Government will consider the recency of the performance, the relevancy including the context of the data, and the quality of the performance and general trends in performance and source of the information to reach a confidence assessment rating using Past Performance Confidence Ratings. See paragraphs 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 for other factors that will be considered in reaching a confidence assessment.

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

4.2.6. Table 2: Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. PHASE ONE – TAB G – FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS: Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed eight (8) single sided pages, including charts and graphs that outlines how the Offeror will plan, execute, monitor and control projects under this MATOC. It should be presented as a high level management approach that the Offeror shall use when executing task orders under this contract.

The plan should address the following topics:

Resource Management Schedule Management Quality Management Communications Management Design and Construction Management Change Management

5.1.1 Resource Management : Identify and explain the roles and responsibilities of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of this contract.

5.1.2 Resource Management: The Offeror shall provide a corporate organization chart that clearly indicates how the firm plans to organize and execute task orders. Include any key firms/subs or types of subcontractors that participate in task orders.

5.1.3 Resource Management: Describe how the Offeror manages resources and integrates construction subcontractors into the construction process.

5.1.4 Schedule Management: Describe the Offeror’s approach to schedule development and management.

5.1.5 Quality Management: Describe the Offeror’s Design and Construction Quality Control Program.

5.1.6 Communications Management: Describe the process for communications and reporting at the project and higher levels.

5.1.7 Design and Construction Management: Describe the Offeror’s processes for handling design and construction problems.

5.1.8 Change Management: Describe the Offeror’s process for integrating design changes after award and handling construction changes/modifications.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Management Approach Evaluation: The project plan should describe how the Offeror plans and executes the work in each of the management requirements above.

5.2.2 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 and design-bid-build process and its capability to execute an awarded contract.

5.2.3 The Offeror will be evaluated on how well defined and clear the management approach is for the submission requirements listed above.

5.2.4 Table 3: Management Approach Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 4: Definition of Risk:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

6. PHASE ONE – TAB H – FACTOR 3 - DESIGN EXPERIENCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single side pages describing its Design Experience or the intended Designer of Record’s (DOR) experience on a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) projects that have a minimum construction value of no less than $20 $3 million each and that demonstrate Design Experience similar to the various requirements described in paragraph 4.1.2 and subparagraphs.

Three of the five projects MUST be Design-Build construction. Projects must be fully designed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the AE, and date of design completion. In addition to the five (5) page narrative, Offerors may submit an additional two (2) single sided pages describing the relationship between the Prime and the Designer of Record for the performance of a subsequent contract (business agreement, formal arrangement, etc.).

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 The evaluation considers the demonstrated record of the Offeror’s DOR experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

6.2.2 Offerors may receive additional consideration in meeting the requirements of this Factor if they are able to demonstrate the successful design experience of the DOR in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 4.1.2 and subparagraphs. Conversely, the DORs may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the project types described in paragraph 4.1.2. DORs may receive additional consideration from the SSEB if they submit more than three Design-Build projects. DORs may also receive additional consideration if they submit evidence of business agreement/level of commitment to the Prime Offeror.

6.2.3 Table 5: Design Experience Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

Table 6: Definition of Risk:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH. This factor is less important than Factor 1 but more important than Factor 3.

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

8. PHASE ONE – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

8.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

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

8.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors, if any, will proceed to phase two.

PHASE TWO – The submission requirements relate to the Seed Task Order.

PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase Two proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00 - Schedule A Base Contract Bid Schedule & Schedule B, Seed Task Order Pricing.

TAB C – Bid Bond – Solicitation Requirement: The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond validating the Offeror’s bonding capability for the Seed Task Order. Submit originals;

photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable. FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

TAB D – FACTOR 4 – Design Technical – Building Function and Aesthetics

TAB E – FACTOR 5 – Design Technical – Quality of Building Systems

9. PHASE TWO – TAB D – FACTOR 4 - DESIGN TECHNICAL – BUILDING FUNCTION

AND AESTHETICS

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

9.1.1 PRESENTATION DRAWINGS

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

b. Schematic floor plans for each facility demonstrating adjacencies, room size requirements, and function.

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

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

9.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

a. Provide technical approach narrative, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the various technical elements of the proposal such as but not limited to: Fire and Life Safety Planning, ATFP Considerations, Mechanical Planning Considerations, Electrical Planning Considerations and other Major Systems Planning. Preface the narratives with a design concepts narrative, providing the design rationale and basis of the proposal. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives under this Factor shall not exceed ten (10) single sided pages.

b. Architectural Theme and Materials. Submit a narrative not exceed two (2) pages of the ten

(10) pages allowed for this Factor. Describe the architectural themes of the various facilities and spaces which demonstrate how the proposal achieves the results desired by the Statement of Work. Narrative should address how the selection of materials and colors enhances the exterior and interior aesthetics of the facilities and improves the living and/or working conditions for the populations who will utilize the facilities. This narrative is not intended to be a material listing, but to explain/reflect how the selections were made and how they address the requirements in the Statement of Work.

9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

9.2.1 FACTOR 4 – DESIGN TECHNICAL – BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS:

The following elements will be evaluated:

9.2.1.1 Do the facilities provide acceptable life safety and fire safety measures? (i.e. Does the proposal describe fire suppression systems, mass notification systems and type of fire alarm systems?)

9.2.1.2 Does the proposal describe ATFP Considerations, Mechanical Planning Considerations, Electrical Planning Considerations and other Major Systems Planning as they relate to the function of the building?

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

a. Exterior Considerations:

1) Does the proposal address design of facades, roof lines, and delineation of entrances, proportions of fenestration in relation to elevations, shade and shadow effects, materials, textures, exterior color schemes.

2) Is the building complimentary of the adjacent structures? Is the building an attractive addition to the installation? How well does the building harmonize with its environment, including surrounding facilities? (Does it look like all the other buildings adjacent to it/on the installation?)

3) Do the windows and doors meet the ATFP?

4) Does the exterior color proposed match the IDG?

b. Interior Considerations:

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

2) For administrative areas, does the interior design provided establish a positive working environment free from congestion and

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

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

5) Does the proposals provide for acoustic control of noise from service/support spaces to administrative areas? (i.e. walls and ceilings between administration areas and maintenance bays.)

9.3 Design Technical – Building Function and Aesthetics will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

Table 7:

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

Table 8: Definition of Risk:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant

10 PHASE TWO – TAB E – FACTOR 5 – DESIGN TECHNICAL – QUALITY OF

BUILDING SYSTEMS

10.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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

b. Technical Approach Narratives. Provide technical approach narrative, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. It is acceptable to include all the elements below into a single combined narrative for the entire facility. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that all aspects identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed.

Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives under this-TECHNICAL SECTION shall not exceed eight (8) typewritten pages

c. Architectural Finishes: Describe how the materials selected provide for a suitable environment for the expected population of the facility. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements. Narrative should focus on durability and maintenance of the finishes proposed.

d. Mechanical Systems: Describe how the mechanical systems selected provide for a highly efficient environmental control system including information about provisions for indoor air quality maintenance. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, limiting energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

e. Plumbing Systems: Describe how the plumbing systems selected provide for a highly efficient domestic hot water system and an efficient piping system. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

f. Electrical Systems: Describe how the electrical power and lighting systems, telephone, data, and cable television systems selected provide for a highly efficient electrical system. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

g. Site Utilities and Site Systems: Describe how the site utility systems selected provide for an efficient piping system. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage. Include information regarding coordination with privatized utility providers where applicable.

h. Interoperability: Describe how systems integrated into the new facilities which require connection and interface with existing installation wide systems will be accommodated in the proposed project. Narrative should address the following systems as minimum: Fire Alarm, Telephone, Cable Television, UMCS, and privatized utility companies where applicable.

i. Energy Conservation: Describe the strategy to achieve required energy savings as specified in the RFP.

j. ATFP Considerations: Describe how the proposed materials, systems, and designs address the mandatory building ATFP requirements included in the Statement of Work.

k. Proposed Material Identifications: In order to evaluate and rate the quality of the materials being proposed, including any material or equipment warranties exceeding the one year warranty in the contract clause “Warranty of Construction”, the Offeror shall include in the proposal material identification for major materials in each of the areas shown below:

1) Architectural Finishes

2) Interior Walls

3) Floors

4) Ceilings 5)Exterior Walls

6) Window systems/types (not individual windows)

7) Roofing Systems

8) Mechanical Systems

9) Central Heating/Cooling Equipment

10) Pumps

11) Air Handling Equipment

12) HVAC System Control Equipment

13) Energy Conservation Features

14) Plumbing Systems

15) Domestic Hot Water Generator

16) Electrical Systems

17) Main Switchgear and Panels

18) Data, Telephone, Cable TV, Intercom, CCTV, or Other Special Systems as Identified in the

SOW

l. The Government will evaluate and consider materials and equipment proposed by brand name and model number as a quality standard. Unless substitution of a manufacturer, brand name or model is otherwise specifically prohibited in the contract, if the successful Offeror desires to substitute manufacturers, brand names or models after award, the substituted product must meet the contract requirements and be approved by the designer of record and the Government as equal in function, performance, quality and salient features to that initially proposed.

m. Acceptance of the proposal is not a guarantee that the proposed products meet the contractual requirements.

10.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

10.2.1 FACTOR 5 – DESIGN TECHNICAL APPROACH – QUALITY OF BUILDING

SYSTEMS:

a. It is the Army's objective that these buildings will have a 50 year useful life. The design and construction should provide an appropriate level of quality to ensure the continued use of the facility over that time period with the application of reasonable preventive maintenance and repairs that would be industry-acceptable to a major civilian sector project OWNER. The facility design should consider that the Army may repurpose the use of the facility over the 50 year life.

Within that overriding theme the Government will evaluate the Offeror selected systems and components proposed in terms of warranties provided, maintenance considerations (frequency, estimated cost, access, equipment locations), operability (ease of use, placement of control features, simplicity), durability (withstand troop usage, ease of cleaning), sustainability, and energy consumption (HVAC, lighting, power, etc.). The minimum acceptable level of quality for finishes and materials for these buildings are those materials suitable for the expected population and usage. Residential or similar grade finishes and materials are not acceptable.

1) The Government encourages the Offeror place emphasis on those design features which optimize and emphasize functional/operational requirements; interior/exterior finishes and systems; and life cycle/ energy efficiency. The following items will be considered in the evaluation of the building systems and materials of the various facilities:

2) Architectural Finishes. Proposals include finishes which provide usable spaces for the intended purposes. Proposals will receive additional consideration for materials offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

3) Architectural Components and Systems. Proposals include components and systems that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

4) Mechanical Components and Systems. Proposals include components and systems that provide the basic environmental control function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, reduce energy consumption, sustainability maintainability (cyclical maintenance, access, equipment placement), and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

5) Plumbing Components and Systems. Proposals include components and systems that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

6) Electrical Components and Systems. Proposals include components and systems that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

7) Site…