B-08 - Solicitation Amendment 0001 - W912HN20R4000.pdf

W912HN20R4000

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

THE PROPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT is to extend the proposal due date from 28th July 2020 to 31st July 2020.

There are no other changes at this time.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jul-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912HN20R4000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jun-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

27-Jul-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 CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time 31-Jul-2020 02:00 PM has been added.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

NOTES TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW

1.1. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) under which task orders for Airfield Maintenance Design-Build Construction primarily at Fort Bragg, NC will be awarded;

however, work may also be performed at other Federal Facilities located within the geographic boundaries of the US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama & Mississippi). Work may be performed at other Federal Facilities outside the above-stated geographical boundary on an excepted basis as determined by the Contracting Officer. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and may be either of a Design-Bid-Build Construction or Design/Build Construction nature. A project requiring use of civil works funds is not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 01 00 00 for the complete scope of the anticipated contract to be awarded under this RFP.)

1.2. The purpose of the Source Selection Plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Two Phase Design Build process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 36.303). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, and the task orders issued there under, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract and task orders issued thereafter.

1.3. For the purpose of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two (2) Phase Design Build Selection Process. In Phase I of the II 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.

1.4. The Government, at the conclusion of Phase I analysis, will select (5) five to (8) eight most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase II.

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

1.6. Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of the solicitation are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. The Government intends to announce the names of Offerors selected for Phase II in the beta.SAMS.gov website. An Offeror that does not want this information released must provide a written notification and explanation of its objections to release of the information. Those Offerors selected for Phase II will be provided the technical requirements package for a Seed Task Order is representative of the type of work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. This requirement will be advertised as a set aside for Small Business. 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 exceptions are that the Designer of Record will be evaluated in Factor 2 and information about members on a joint venture will be evaluated in Factor 1.

2.3. Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in the schedule of the Notes to Offerors.

2.4. Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442 and paragraph 3.3.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

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. The Offeror’s Price and Technical proposals shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The Offeror’s proposal is due no later than 2:00 p.m. ET, July 31st, 2020.

The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via DODSAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHOD (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, US POSTAL MAIL, HAND

CARRIED, ETC) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall submit their proposal using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposal using the link above to Contract Specialist Rohan Bryan at rohan.a.bryan@usace.mil AND to Contracting Officer Magdalena Bernard at magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS: Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the DODSAFE website. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the DODSAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist of the proposals. The Contract Specialist for this project is Mr. Rohan Bryan whose email address is Rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Mrs. Magdalena Bernard, whose email address is Magdalena.Bernard@usace.army.mil.

Proposal Due Date and Time

Request For Proposal No: W912HN20R4000 Due Date of Proposal: 31st July 2020 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:rohan.a.bryan@usace.mil mailto:magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil

Title of Project: Airfield MATOC, Fort Bragg, NC

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN20R4000_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912HN20R4000_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the email notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is sent minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email 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.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE FOR SAFE WEBSITE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Rohan Bryan at rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Magdalena Bernard at magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the DODSAFE website. Offerors that fail to email for request of a code five (5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s).

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII) in the File Description.)

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW ON THE DODSAFE WEBSITE:

a. Once at the SAFE website, select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the DODSAFE site as a guest.

b. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, receipt (Government representative) information and emails email settings.

c. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter email addresses for all recipients. For this solicitation, the receipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation Rohan Bryan at rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil, and the Contracting Officer is Magdalena Bernard at magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil. The contractor must enter the E- Mail address for both the Contracting Specialist and Officer. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts. Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the DODSAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address.

Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A contractor can confirm proper submission by the “Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents may upload more quickly in the DODSAFE website when using the 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.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded in the DODSAFE website. For mailto:rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil mailto:magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil mailto:rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil mailto:magdalena.bernard@usace.army.mil proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the DODSAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded in to the DODSAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

4. QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS): Any contract award resulting from this solicitation will require the mandatory use of the automated Quality Control System. Please see Section 01 45 01 for additional information.

5. TECHNICAL MATTERS: Submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via Bidder Inquiry in Projnet (https://www.projnet.org) at least 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFO for receipt of bids. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this Invitation for RFP contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound; immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via email, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on the beta.SAM.gov website in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

INVITATION FOR PROPOSAL NO: W912HN20R4000

TITLE OF PROJECT: Airfield Maintenance Design Build MATOC, Ft. Bragg, NC Bidder Inquiry Key: 5R4JII-7S3N6F

Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time

Zone. Remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 1 through 3: same as above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking for the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed, you are logged into the system.

6. Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follow:

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.

https://www.projnet.org/

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 used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for the Designer of Record identified in Factor 3. The Offeror should also submit the 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. The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond for Phase I, 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. Surety Letter will only be accepted via Federal Express (FedEx) or United Parcel Service (UPS). Other Forms of delivery are not authorized.

ELECTRONIC SURETY LETTER SUBMISSION, TO INCLUDE EMAIL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS

IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

HANDCARRIED SURETY LETTER SUBMISSIONS, except for delivery by Federal Express and United Parcel Service, IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

Surety Letters must be delivered by U.S. Mail, including U.S. Express Mail, Federal Express or United Parcel Service. All Surety Letters must be clearly identified with the contractor’s name and address. To ensure timely and properly handling, the lower left corner of the outermost wrapper should indicate the following:

Request For Proposal No: W912HN20R4000 Due Date of Proposal: 31st July 2020 Time by which Proposals are Due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) Title of Project: Airfield MATOC, Fort Bragg, NC

Surety Letter must be addressed:

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Savannah District ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Rohan Bryan) 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, Georgia 31401-3640

VOLUME II

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

TAB G – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB H – FACTOR 2 Design Performance

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

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

7.1.1. The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the offeror or its construction team members to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients to ensure timely submittal of completed questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal, 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 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 Rohan Bryan (Contract Specialist). Request may be made via email to Rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance, no later than five (5) business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, or UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror’s name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs but shall not incorporate PPQs by reference into the proposal. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The Government will consider 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 7.1.2.

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, unit or team member submitting the offer. Ensure that the PPQs or CCASS or CPARS evaluations submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

7.1.2. 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 $1 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 and Design-Build Construction for the new, rehabilitation, maintenance or repair of situations relating, but not limited to, Airfield and Heliport pavements (including airport runways, taxiways, ramps, aprons, helipads and adjacent stabilized areas), concrete aprons, storm drainage, striping and site preparation of Government facilities.

mailto:Rohan.a.bryan@usace.army.mil

No less than three (3) of the five (5) 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.

7.1.3. Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3) in accordance with 7.1.2. 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 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.

7.1.4. 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.

7.1.5. 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.

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

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA.

7.2.1. 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.

7.2.2. Recent and Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must meet the minimum criteria in 7.1.2 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.

Rating Description 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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and

7.2.3. Confidence Assessment.

7.2.3.1. The Government will consider the regency 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.

7.2.3.2. 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).

7.2.3.3. 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 7.1.2. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the variety of work described in paragraph 7.1.2. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence by demonstrating self-performance of airfield maintenance and construction by their company. Such experience may be deemed more highly favorable. 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 submitting as joint ventures may increase the SSEB's level of confidence if both joint venture partners submit work as described in paragraph 7.1.2. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence for if an Offeror submits as a joint venture and both joint venture partners do not submit work as described in paragraph 7.1.2. 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.

7.2.4. 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

Neutral

(Unknown)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror will perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low

No

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

8. PHASE ONE – TAB H – FACTOR 2 – DESIGN EXPERIENCE.

8.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

8.1.1. Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single sided 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.

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

8.1.3. Projects must have a minimum construction value of no less than $1 million each

8.1.4. Projects must demonstrate experience with design requirements similar to those described in paragraph 7.1.2.

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

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

8.1.7. 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.).

8.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

8.2.1. 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.

8.2.2. 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 7.1.2. Conversely, the DOR may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the variety of work described in paragraph 7.1.2. 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.

8.2.3. 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 understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated and 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 un-awardable.

Definition of Risk:

Adjectival Rating Definition 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 contactor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely to 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. (Offeror) is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

9. 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.

10. PHASE ONE – 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 exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors, if any, will proceed to Phase Two.

11. 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, Seed Task Order Pricing.

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

TAB D – Factor 3 – Technical Approach

TAB E – Factor 4 – Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule

12. PHASE II – TAB D – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

12.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

12.1.1. Technical Approach Narrative. Provide a technical approach narrative, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal Include technical approach on all of the sub-items, and manufacturers data sheets for proposed materials into a single combined narrative for the SEED/SAMPLE task order. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that all aspects identified are addressed. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives shall not exceed five (5) type-written single-sided pages.

12.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

12.2.1. Technical Approach: Offerors will be evaluated on their technical approach, proposed materials and techniques to the SEED/SAMPLE task order for logic, reasonableness, and how well it meets the requirements as noted in the SEED/SAMPLE task order scope of work.

12.3. Technical Approach Ratings

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.

Acceptance 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.

Unacceptance Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more

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 contain a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. (Offeror) 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 to a unacceptance level.

13. PHASE II – TAB E – FACTOR 4 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE.

13.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

13.1.1. Offerors shall submit a preliminary summary level construction schedule for the SEED/SAMPLE task order.

13.1.1.1. The summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a final schedule as required by the RFP (Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule). Proposed schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented.

13.1.1.2. Show the overall construction phase and a detailed breakdown by trades.

13.1.1.3. Show turnover of the project. Identify any time required to complete the project and turnover to the Government considering the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

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

13.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

13.2.1. Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period for the SEED/SAMPLE task order, if awarded. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may consider how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations.

13.2.1.1. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the construction schedule for the SEED/SAMPLE task order. The length of the schedule must match the proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, the proposal may receive a more favorable rating provided the proposed duration is logical, realistic, deemed achievable and is fully supported. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals (if applicable), reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government will evaluate the packaging plan which should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for coordination for reviews.

13.3. Proposal Contract Duration and Summary Schedule Ratings 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.

Acceptance 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.

Unacceptance Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more

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 contain a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. (Offeror) 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 to a unacceptance level.

14. PHASE TWO – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

14.1. 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.

14.2. 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.

14.3. The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently and exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror(s), if any, will receive the contract award.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 the less important than Factor 1; but, more important than Factor 4.

FACTOR 4: PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE. This factor is less important than Factors 1 and 3; but, more important than Factor 2.

Technical Factors when combined are significantly more important than PRICE.

18. PRICE.

18.1. 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(s). Prices and mark-up(s) shall be proposed and submitted on the Proposal Pricing Schedule as provided in the solicitation. All pricing submitted shall be binding across the life of the contract.

18.2. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute task orders with the overhead(s) proposed. Price analysis will be performed on Price Proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. 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.

18.3. The Government shall use the total proposed price, to include options if applicable, as the evaluated price for making the best value determination of the SEED/SAMPLE Task Order. The SEED Task Order, if applicable, may be ineligible for award if the proposed price exceeds the indicated construction cost limitation (CCL).

19. BASIS FOR AWARD

19.1. 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.

19.2. 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, and in turn, the Government will compare proposals to one another. The Government anticipates awarding 3-5 contracts to the responsible Offerors whose technical submittal and price proposal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government.

19.3. The successful Offerors, if any, will be awarded a MATOC base contract with a ceiling of $45 Million for the MATOC pool and a $2,500.00 guaranteed minimum per contract for the base ordering period.

19.4. As technical ratings and…