B.08- AMD 0005 19R3000Ph2.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

See Block 14 Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 35

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Apr-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. 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 W912HN19R3000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Aug-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Apr-2020

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 CODE CODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN19R3000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

SF30 BLOCK14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of Amendment 0005 is to:

A. CONTRACT CHANGES:

1. The following Seed Project pre-bid site visit documents (Attachments 10-11) are hereby added into and made a part of the solicitation.

a. Attachment 10, Pierce Range, Site Visit, Attendee Roster, 19R3000

b. Attachment 11, Pierce Range, Site Visit, Memorandum for Record, 19R3000

2. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: Section V, Section 00 21 00 Proposal Submission Requirements and Instructions Volume II-Technical Requirements changes are hereby added into and made a part of the solicitation as follows:

From:

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.

To:

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

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. The Offeror will submit a quantitative proposal for the sample/seed project utilizing R.S. Means Cost Works. Offerors final proposed price will be submitted on Cost Breakdown Schedule D and offeror shall provide ALL supporting documents (R.S. Means break out, non-priced items, etc.). Offeror’s proposal shall be prepared and meet the requirements as stated in Notes To Offeror.

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

9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they understand the required application of the proposed coefficient and mark-ups.

9.2.2 The Government will evaluate strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall quantitative approach for logic and reasonableness. The Offeror will also be evaluated on how well defined, clear and well supported the approach is for the SEED project.

B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: Section 00 21 00 – Instructions, Additional Notes to Offerors, Appendix A, Section 19 Technical Requirements changes are incorporated into and made a part of the solicitation as follows:

From: A. Attachments 1-9

To: A. Attachments 1-24

C. CONTRACT DRAWINGS: The following drawings (Attachments 12-22) are hereby incorporated into and made a part of the solicitation:

a. Attachment 12, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E1, 19R3000

b. Attachment 13, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E2, 19R3000

c. Attachment 14, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E3, 19R3000

d. Attachment 15, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E4, 19R3000

e. Attachment 16, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E5, 19R3000

f. Attachment 17, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E6, 19R3000

g. Attachment 18, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E7, 19R3000

h. Attachment 19, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, 44047-E8, 19R3000

i. Attachment 20, Ar OSUT 5, Control Tower MTL Arch Dwgs, 19R3000

j. Attachment 21, Range Control Tower, Small Arms, ST-M2, 19R3000

k. Attachment 22, Mtl Tower, Structural & Shop Drawings, 19R3000

l. Attachment 23, Pierce Range Ammo Issue Point, 19R3000

m. Attachment 24, 2014_Aerial_Photo_LIDAR_Topo_Info, 19R3000

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

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 Seed Task Order that will be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

The 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 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 reuqirements and instrustions 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:

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. 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 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 Schedule & Cost Breakdown Schedule D, Seed 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. PHASE TWO – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. The Offeror will submit a quantitative proposal for the seed project utilizing R.S. Means Cost Works. Offerors final proposed price will be submitted on Schedule D and offeror shall provide ALL supporting documents (R.S. Means break out, non-priced items, etc.). Offeror’s proposal shall be prepared and meet the requirements as stated in Notes To Offeror.

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

9.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

9.2.1. Offerors will be evaluated on the technical approach in determining a price proposal utilizing the applicable Construction Specification Institute (CSI) numbers and appropriate quantities from R.S. Means. Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they understand the required application of the proposed coefficient and mark-ups.

9.2.2 The Government will evaluate strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall quantitative approach for logic and reasonableness. The Offeror will also be evaluated on how well defined, clear and well supported the approach is for the SEED project.

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

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:

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 seed task order for phase two, and any contract modifications executed during the life of the contract.

In particular, for the 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 seed project shall be submitted on Schedule D, Seed 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 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 52.215-11

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 (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Organization:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS

ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE

CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES

THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with…