19R3000Ph1.PDF

Savannah District Area of Responsibility AOR)

Solicitation Number

W912HN-19-R-3000

Single-Award Task Order (SATOC), Phase I Procurement and Contracting Requirements and Specification Division 01 August 2019

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVENUE

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31401-3640

US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District

SATOC 19R3000

CESAS AOR

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DI VI SI ON 01 - GENERAL REQUI REMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 30 00 ADMI NI STRATI VE REQUI REMENTS

01 32 01 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMI TTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 16 DESI GN DATA ( DESI GN AFTER AWARD)

01 33 29 SUSTAI NABI LI TY REPORTI NG

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUI REMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLI CATI ONS

01 45 00 QUALI TY CONTROL

01 45 00. 15 RESI DENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE ( RMS CM)

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTI ON FACI LI TI ES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVI RONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTI ON AND DEMOLI TI ON WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMI TTALS

01 78 23 OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE DATA

- - End of Pr oj ect Tabl e of Cont ent s - -

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

This is a competitive acquisition for the aw ard of an Indefinite Delivery Contract type Single Aw ard Task Order Contract (SATOC) w ith a total capacity of $95M. The aw ard w ill be made from this solicitation using an 8(a) small business set-aside competition to the Offeror w hose proposal represents the best overall value and is determined to provide the most benefit to the Government. The aw arded contract w ill be for a base period of tw o years w ith three (3) one-year option periods. Task orders issued under the SATOC w ill be f irm-fixed price.

The Government w ill evaluate Phase I proposals IAW the criteria described herein and w ill select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualif ied Offerors to participate in Phase II.

The proposal of the successful Offeror shall be incorporated by reference upon aw ard of the contract.

ELIZABETH A THORSTAD 912-652-6071

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

23-Aug-2019

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________0 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________24 Sep 2019 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

W912HN

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912HN19R3000 75

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912HN19R3000

Section 00 01 15 - List of Drawing Sheets

WAGE DETERMINATIONS

Wage Determination(s) will be determined on a Task Order basis.

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

Section 00 20 00 - Instructions for Procurement

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO OFFERORS

1. RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM): Any contract award resulting from this solicitation will require the mandatory use of the automated RMS CM.

2. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: Increased security at military installations may require vehicle and personnel registration, as well as 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

3. TECHNICAL MATTERS: Technical inquiries are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet. All questions regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) must be submitted in writing via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet within no less than 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to receipt of proposals.

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

To submit and review bid inquiry items, Offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the system. To self-register, go to web page, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, your e-mail address, and click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify all information on the next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via e-mail, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Bidder Inquiry Key: KGA7UM-52VFX9

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS NOTES:

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

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

FROM ONLY THE OFFERORS SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PHASE II.

THE PHASE II SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ARE SUBJECT TO

CHANGE PRIOR TO THE PHASE II SOLICITATION BEING ISSUED.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically.

This applies to both Phase One and Phase Two, except for the Bid Bond in Phase Two. 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:

W912HN19R3000_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME I

W912HN19R3000_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME II

Submit proposals electronically via the DoD SAFE website at https://safe.apps.mil/. At the DoD 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 DoD 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 DoD 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 DoD SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the DoD SAFE website, you will be required to enter email addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Liz Thorstad, whose e-mail address is Elizabeth.A.Thorstad@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Magdalena Bernard, whose e-mail address is Magdalena.Bernard@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 DoD SAFE will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to DoD 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 DoD SAFE website and the confirmation emails you receive from DoD SAFE.

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

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

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

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

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 Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) 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 with the primary focus area being Moody Air Force Base, Ft Benning, Dobbins Air Force Reserve Base, Robbins Air Force Base. Work contemplated on this SATOC 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 a target number of 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 Sample/Seed Task Order that will be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s). The Sample/Seed Task Order will be used for the purpose of ensuring potential contractors understand the task order preparation process and how to properly apply area coefficients and mark-ups. The Sample/Seed Task Order will be used to evaluate price reasonableness.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit a Proposal. The requirement will be advertised as a set aside for 8(a) Small Businesses. 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. The only exception to this is that the Designer of Record will be evaluated in Factor 2.

Also, see 4.1.1 concerning evaluation of an Offeror that is a joint venture.

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in RFP Section 00-21-00, Instructions, proposal submission requirements and instructions notes.

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 Volume Format. 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. W912HN19R3000 USACE Volume I.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.

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.

VOLUME II

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

TAB G – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB H – FACTOR 2 Design Experience.

4. PHASE ONE – TAB G – 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 Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3 at the end of this section. Offerors may also submit CCASS or CPARS evaluations in addition to or instead of a PPQ.

The PPQ is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact). 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 may complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal which will provide contract and client information for the project.

Offerors may submit an additional page for each project submitted describing how it is similar to the requirements in this solicitation. The first page of the PPQ, CCASS or CPARS evaluation and an additional page, if used, must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the recency and relevancy of the project.

The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror with the points of contact to the extent necessary to verify the information 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), Elizabeth Thorstad. Request may be made via email to Elizabeth.A.Thorstad@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 emailed or 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 shall not incorporate by reference into the proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The Government will consider any available CCASS or CPARS information on the relevant projects submitted.

The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Summary Sheet (Attachment

2) to provide a summary of the PPQs/CCASS/CPARS included. 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. The projects 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 or CCASS or CPARS evaluations 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 $2 million each. 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.

All projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy. Projects with similar size, scope, and complexity of the following may be considered relevant projects:

General Construction or Design-Build Construction of new or renovated/repaired facilities involving architectural exteriors/interiors, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression, communication, renewable energy, roofing, anti-terrorism and force protection, and/or structural systems, site work, airfield pavements, transportation systems (i.e. roads, highways, bridges, and/or parking), and/or storm water management systems.

No less than three of the five projects SHALL be Design-Build construction.

Please note that projects submitted by design firms will not be evaluated in this factor. Design firms shall submit projects in accordance with the requirements in Factor 2.

4.1.3 Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3) in accordance with 4.1.2. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the JV and its members. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. Offerors shall submit only projects wherein the Offeror or proposed joint venture members were the prime contractors. 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.

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.

4.2.2 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must meet the minimum criteria in paragraph 4.1.2 in order to be considered. 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.

4.2.3 Confidence Assessment:

4.2.3.1 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.

4.2.3.2 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 “Neutral Confidence” (Unknown).

4.2.3.3 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 variety of work described in paragraph 4.1.2. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they submit more than three (3) Design-Build projects. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors that do not demonstrate experience with Design-Build projects or have limited experience. 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 2 worked together.

4.2.4. 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 H – FACTOR 2 - DESIGN EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single side pages describing its design experience or the design experience of the intended Designer of Record (DOR). In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, whether it is design-build or design-bid-build construction, the role of the DOR, and date of design completion.

5.1.2 Provide a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) projects

5.1.3 Projects must have a minimum construction value of no less than $2 million each

5.1.4 Projects must demonstrate experience with design requirements similar to those described in paragraph 4.1.2.

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

5.1.6 Projects must be fully designed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

5.1.7 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.).

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

5.2.2 Offerors may receive additional consideration for 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. Conversely, the DOR may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the variety of work described in paragraph 4.1.2. The DOR may receive additional consideration from the SSEB if it has performed more than three Design-Build projects. The DOR may also receive additional consideration evidence is submitted concerning the level of commitment to the Prime Offeror.

5.2.3 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 unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Definition of Risk:

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. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is the most important factor.

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

7. PHASE ONE – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

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

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

7.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

7.3 The final ratings on individual factors will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently and exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors, if any, will proceed to Phase two.

8. PHASE TWO – The submission requirements relate to the Sample/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, Sample Task Order Pricing.

8.1. PRICE.

8.1.1. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. Coefficients for firm-fixed price type task orders shall be proposed and submitted on the Task Order Pricing Schedule shown at Section 00010 - Schedule A of the solicitation. An Offeror awarded a contract will be required to use the proposed coefficients for the seed project and all future task orders.

8.1.2. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed on Schedules A & B in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in this analysis. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

8.1.3. The Government shall use the total evaluated price from Schedule A as the evaluated price for making the best value decision.

8.1.4.Offerors shall apply their proposed Area Coefficient for Fort Benning and their proposed Home Office Overhead for the base period to this project.

TAB C – Bid Bond – Solicitation Requirement: The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond 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. 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 – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

9. PHASE TWO – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. The Offeror will submit a proposal for the sample/seed project utilizing R.S. Means Cost Works.

9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

9.2.1. Offerors will be evaluated on the technical approach in utilizing the applicable Construction Specification Institute (CSI) numbers and appropriate quantities from R.S.

Means.

9.3. Technical Approach. This Factor will be rated as follows:

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.

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.

10. PHASE II – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

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

10.2. Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

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

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

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

13. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is the most important factor.

FACTOR 2: DESIGN EXPERIENCE. This factor is the least important factor.

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

FACTOR 4: PRICE. Per FAR 15.304)c)(1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection.

Technical Factors when combined are significantly more important than Price.

14. PRICE.

14.1. Offeror’s shall include a detailed summary related to the estimated price for each CLIN of this solicitation and a summary of cost/price (inclusive of base and options).

The Government issued this solicitation with the anticipation of adequate price competition; therefore, any cost/price documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data as necessary, in order to ensure a reasonable price.

No cost data beyond this instruction shall be submitted. All data related to the proposed price, including all supporting documentation (R.S. Means break out, non-priced items, etc.) must be included in this section of the proposal.

Area Coefficients, Home Office Overhead (HOOH), Field Office Overhead (FOOH), and a Bond Premium shall be proposed and submitted at Section 00 10 00 – Schedule A Base Contract Bid as provided in the solicitation. These rates will be binding and used on all future task orders including the sample/seed task order for phase two, and any contract modifications executed during the life of the contract.

In particular, for the sample/seed task order, Offerors shall apply their proposed Area Coefficient for Fort Benning and their proposed HOOH, FOOH, and Bond Premium rates for the base period of this project. The referenced rates must be consistent with the base contract bid schedule. Offerors final proposed price for the sample/seed project shall be submitted on Bid Schedule B, Sample Task Order Pricing.

14.2. Price will be evaluated for completeness (including price submission errors or omissions and areas requiring clarification), price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they understood the required application of the proposed coefficient and mark-ups to the sample/seed project. No adjectival ratings will be utilized for evaluating price.

A price analysis will be performed for all proposed CLIN prices in order to make the fair and reasonableness determination. Reasonableness is an assessment of whether the proposed price is too high. In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b).

Reasonableness will be established using available pricing tools such as historical price information, price competition information, and the Independent Government Estimate.

A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award and, as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

For the evaluation of each price proposal the Government will utilize an overall total evaluated price (TEP). The overall TEP will represent a sum total of the proposed prices for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs. The TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for making the best value decision. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

14.3. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.”

15. BASIS FOR AWARD

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

15.2. In order to determine which proposal represents the best value, a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP will be conducted. The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government.

15.3. The successful Offeror(s), if any, will be awarded a SATOC with a maximum quantity of $95 Million and a $2,500.00 guaranteed minimum for the base ordering period.

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

15.5. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest reasonably priced Offeror. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

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

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL DATA

SHEET

8(a) General Construction Design-Build

Fort Benning SATOC

1. Name of Firm: Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CPARS, PIPRS)

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-

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

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate: ________________________________________ Negotiator’s Address: ________________________________________________________ Negotiator’s Telephone: __________________________________ Negotiator’s E-mail:______________________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

PAST PERFORMANCE SUMMARY SHEET

8(a) General Construction Design-Build Fort Benning SATOC

The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Summary Sheet to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet shall include information for all columns.

No.

Project Name

Contractor

Contract#

Construction % Complete

Actual or Scheduled Completion

Date

Design Build or

Design Bid Build?

ATTACHMENT 3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE (PPQ)

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: ___ Prime Contractor ___Sub Contractor __Joint Venture ___ Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work: ___High ___ Med ___ Routine

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

CLIENT INFORMATION…