B.08 W912HN22R3004 Fort Benning SOF HQ Solicitation AMD 0001.pdf

W912HN22R3004

92792

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

A. Contract Changes: Instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria fixed to enable reading. Added tw o bid schedule acceptance dates (0-120 days = Bid Acceptance Date One / 121-240 days = Bid Acceptance Date Tw o), updated instrucitons to offerors and evaluation criteria to reflect the tw o bid schedules. Site Visit Roster added to posting, B. Technical Specification Changes: None.

C. Contract Draw ing Changes: None.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Mar-2022

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 W912HN22R3004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Mar-2022

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

22-Mar-2022

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, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

SOF Battalion HQs to the 5-Ft Line, Complete

To:

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 days): SOF Battalion HQs to the 5-Ft Line, Complete

CLIN 0002

Development and Hardstand, Complete

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 days):Development and Hardstand, Complete

CLIN 0003

Pedestrian Bridge and Vehicle Charging Stations, Complete

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 days): Pedestrian Bridge and Vehicle Charging Stations, Complete

CLIN 0004

Escorts During Construction

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 days):Escorts During Construction

CLIN 0005

Procurement and Installation of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 days): Procurement and Installation of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment

The following have been added by full text:

BID ACCEPTANCE DATE TWO

Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121 – 240 Days)

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Base-ConstructionFFP

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121-240 days):

SOF Battalion HQs to the 5-Ft Line, Complete

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job Base-SiteFFP

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121-240 days):

Development and Hardstand, Complete

0003 1 Job OPTION Option 1FFP

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121-240 days):

Pedestrian Bridge and Vehicle Charging Stations, Complete

0004 1 Job OPTION Option 2FFP

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121-240 days):

Escorts During Construction

0005 1 Job OPTION Option 3FFP

For Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121-240 days):

Procurement and Installation of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

PN92792 SOF Battalion Headquarters Fort Benning, GA

Bid Schedule Acceptance Date One (0-120 Days)

TOTAL BASE BID (CLIN 0001 Though CLIN 0002) $ _______________________

TOTAL OPTIONS 1 through 3 (CLINS 0003 Through 0005) $ ______________________

TOTAL BASE and ALL OPTIONS (CLINS 0001 Through 0005) $ ______________________

At the contracting officer discretion, Option 1 (CLIN 0003) and/or Option 2 (CLIN 0004) may be executed NLT 90 calendar days after notice to proceed. No additional time will be added to the contract performance period

At the contracting officer discretion, Option 3 (CLIN 0005) may be executed NLT 450 calendar days after notice to proceed. No additional time will be added to the contract period of performance.

Bid Schedule Acceptance Date Two (121- 240 Days)

TOTAL BASE BID (CLIN 0001 Though CLIN 0002) $ _______________________

TOTAL OPTIONS 1 through 3 (CLINS 0003 Through 0005) $ ______________________

TOTAL BASE and ALL OPTIONS (CLINS 0001 Through 0005) $ ______________________

At the contracting officer discretion, Option 1 (CLIN 0003) and/or Option 2 (CLIN 0004) may be executed NLT 90 calendar days after notice to proceed. No additional time will be added to the contract performance period

At the contracting officer discretion, Option 3 (CLIN 0005) may be executed NLT 450 calendar days after notice to proceed. No additional time will be added to the contract period of performance.

EXPLANATION OF BID ITEMS

GENERAL: This section comprises an explanation of the bid items identified in the bid schedule for each item of work. The Contractor shall bid the work under the applicable bid item for the specific areas identified in the bid schedule. All work specified herein shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the technical provisions of the specifications and the contract drawings.

0001 Base-Construction SOF Battalion HQs to the 5-Ft Line, Complete.

Furnish and install all materials, plant, tools, labor costs, and other associated incidentals necessary to complete the construction of the SOF Battalion Headquarters in accordance with the solicitation documents. This line item shall include applicable power and pathway infrastructure for equipment, such as the audio-visual equipment, access control, and security systems.

0002 Base-Site Development and Hardstand, Complete.

Furnish and install of all materials, plant, tools, labor costs, and other associated incidentals necessary to complete the site development, hardstand, and utilities in accordance with the solicitation documents. This CLIN does not include privatized utilities that are being designed and/or installed by others. Work shown to be completed by others is not in contract.

0003 Option 1 - Pedestrian Bridge and Vehicle Charging Stations, Complete.

Provide a fully engineered clear span bridge of welded steel construction, and fully engineered concrete foundation system in accordance with the solicitation documents. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Stations encompassing the conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded, and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of delivering energy from the premises wiring to the electric vehicle (EV) in accordance with the solicitation documents.

0004 Option 2 - Escorts During Construction.

Provide guard and escorts, and follow the procedure as noted in accordance with the solicitation documents to include Specification 01 14 00 Section 1.4.3.2 and 1.4.3.3 Escorts. A guard is required at the entrance of the construction site from the start of construction through the final acceptance by the Government. Another guard is required at the entrance of the S-2 Secure Area once the area is enclosed on exterior surfaces and prior to the start of interior rough-in in the S-2 Area until final acceptance by the Government. Escorts shall have line of sight to each worker within the S-2 Secure Area. Adjust the number of escorts or the number of workers as needed.

0005 Option 3 - Procurement and Installation of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment.

Procurement and Installation of Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E) Package as listed Appendix U Furniture FF&E Procurement Data Sheets of the Comprehensive Interior Design.

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Fort Benning, GA

Name of Firm: ____________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________

Phone: __________________________________________

Fax: ____________________________________________

Person(s) Authorized to Sign Proposal: _____________________________________

E-mail: ____________________________________________________________

DUNS # (used for accessing SAM, CPARS, PPIRS): __________________________________

CAGE CODE: _____________________

TAX ID: ______________________________

Large/Small Business: _____________________________

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT

PART II

SECTION V

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for offers to construct the SOF Battalion Headquarters at Fort Benning, GA. This will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit a Proposal. The requirement will be advertised for full and open competition; any legally organized firm may submit a proposal. Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.

2.2 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. Information about firms that are part of a joint venture will be considered when the joint venture is the Offeror.

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Proposal and Bid Bond Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00.

2.4 Offers shall submit two bid schedules. One for bid schedule acceptance 0- 120 days (bid schedule acceptance date one) and one for bid schedule acceptance 121-240 days (bid schedule acceptance date two). This will enable the Government time to seek Above Threshold Reprogramming (ATR) in the event that all bid schedules received exceed the current reprogramming authority.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

3.1 Submissions

Material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper size, using no smaller than a 10 pitch or 10 font.

Offerors shall submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of 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, Offeror’s Company name and the volume (i.e. W912HN22R3004 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.

3.2 Proposal Format. The Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I Price/Representations/Certifications Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

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.

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 10 00 – Proposal Pricing Schedule TAB C - Section 00 45 00– Representations and Certifications TAB D – 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.

Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture, it must be submitted. The Offeror should also submit its Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB E – Bid Bond – See Clause 52.228-1, for required bond information. The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond. Photocopied or electronically scanned bid bonds are not acceptable and may lead to the rejection of the proposal as non-responsive.

Offerors shall use the most recent bond form SF24 (REV. 8/2016).

TAB F – Financial Information: Provide the last three years financial statements, Annual Reports, Dun and 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 shall also provide a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

TAB G – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 VOLUME II Technical Submittal Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

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.

TAB H – Past Performance Questionnaires Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)(CPARS) (Attachment 3). These forms will be used to evaluate both FACTOR 1 Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience and FACTOR 2 Past Performance, CPARS evaluation.

4. TAB H – FACTOR 1 – Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience

The SSEB will review the two Offerors with the lowest price for technically acceptability (Factors 1 and 2) with the intent to have at least two offerors who are technically acceptable for price reasonableness determination. If the lowest two offerors are not determined technically acceptable, the SSEB will continue to evaluate subsequent lowest priced offerors until at least two are determined technically acceptable. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness based on a minimum of two technically acceptable offerors. If two technically acceptable offerors proposals are not received, the government will utilize other price analysis techniques described in paragraph 7.3.

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 Using the Past Performance Questionnaires Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)(CPARS) (Attachment 3), the Offeror shall demonstrate experience in performing projects meeting the requirements described in the paragraphs below. Offerors shall submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, were the prime contractor and played a significant role and 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/CPARs and continuation sheet, if used, submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

4.1.2 If the Offeror is a joint venture, the projects do not have to have been performed by the joint venture submitting the offer. These projects could have been performed by either company in the joint venture.

4.1.3 The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information. These other sources may include, but are not restricted to, CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), and

Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. Additional interviews with Government personnel will be documented.

4.1.4 The projects submitted for consideration in Factor 1 shall be the same projects submitted for evaluation in Factor 2. The total number of projects submitted must not exceed three (3). If more than three (3) are submitted, only the first three (3) will be reviewed.

4.1.5 Basis for Evaluation. The Offeror is required to demonstrate their experience of recent and relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

For the purposes of this evaluation, a recent and relevant project is further defined as follows:

1. Recent projects:

Projects submitted must have been successfully completed, or fully designed and at least 50% construction completed, within the last six

(6) years preceding the date of the solicitation.

2. Relevant experience:

All projects submitted must be new construction and may be either design-build or design-bid-build projects. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum contract value.

Offerors shall submit three (3) projects which demonstrate experience in construction of vertical facilities, excluding pre-engineered metal buildings, with characteristics described below. Each project submitted must demonstrate experience with the characteristics below:

Construction of Headquarters and Operational Facilities, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Medical Facilities, Administrative & Office Buildings, Educational Facilities, Military Educational Facilities, Religious Facilities, Dining Facilities, Recreational Facilities, Vehicle Maintenance Facilities, Aircraft Storage Facilities, Air Traffic Control Towers/Facilities, and Barracks Buildings. For vertical construction (excluding pre-engineered metal buildings);

Includes sitework, interior/exterior finishes (floors, ceilings, doors, windows, paint, siding, etc.), architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and fire suppression systems. (all must be included to be determined relevant); and

Have a construction contract value of at least $20,000,000.

4.1.6 The project description shall clearly describe the project. The Government will not assume any project characteristics that are not specifically identified and described. The Offeror may attach a continuation sheet to the PPQ/CPARS if needed consisting of one (1) page to describe how the project contained the elements described above and meets the requirements of this factor. The submission must contain sufficient information for the government to determine whether the project meets the requirements of 4.1.5.

4.1.7 The PPQ must provide a Point of Contact for the Client. If the Government is unable to verify the information provided on the PPQs with the client Point of Contact, or by other sources available (e.g. CPARS), the Government reserves the right to disregard that project when evaluating the Offeror’s experience.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.2.1 Corporate Relative Specialized Experience. The SSEB will evaluate the experience by looking at the projects provided by the Offeror and determine if the projects meet the minimum criteria required for this solicitation.

4.2.2 Primary Elements for Evaluation. The rating methodology for Factor 1 is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined in Table 1. All projects must meet the requirements outlined in paragraph 4.1.5.

Table 1. Technical Ratings for Technical Approach

RATINGS DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5. TAB H - FACTOR 2 - Past Performance

The SSEB will review the two Offerors with the lowest price for technically acceptability (Factors 1 reasonableness determination. If the first two offerors are not determined technically acceptable, the SSEB will continue to evaluate subsequent lowest priced offerors until at least two are determined technically acceptable. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to require evaluation of more than two offerors if there are other unknown situations that arise in order to make a fair and reasonable price determination. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness based on a minimum of two technically acceptable offerors. If two technically acceptable offerors proposals are not received, the government will utilize other price analysis techniques described in paragraph 7.3.

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on each project submitted for Factor 1. The information submitted through the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)/CPARS) (Attachment 3) for Factor 1 will be evaluated for this factor. The PPQ is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client Point of Contact. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. While it is important to submit a PPQ signed by the client 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 which will contain contract and client information and submit it with the proposal.

The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If the Government is unable to verify the information in the PPQ, it may be disregarded.

Offerors are cautioned that the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine whether the project contains the elements of work similar to this requirement as described in Factor 1. One (1) additional page may be used for each PPQ if needed to include this information as stated in Factor 1.

Offerors may also submit a CPARS evaluation for each relevant project in lieu of a PPQ. Ensure that the PPQs or CPARS evaluations submitted for this Factor and Factor 1 clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project to include the client’s information (Name(s), Phone Number(s), Email Address), and for the respective project(s).

5.1.2 Basis of Evaluation. The evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of assessing the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offeror, using the same projects and narrative from Factor 1 shall demonstrate the quality of performance information on projects determined by the Government to be recent and relevant as described in Factor 1 in paragraph 4.1.5.

5.1.3 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 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. When reviewing other sources any ratings “Marginal” and below for a project will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for this Factor.

5.1.4 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.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation is the reasonable expectation of the offeror to successfully meet the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305.

5.2.2 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation. Past performance will initially be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent and relevant to the effort required in the RFP.

The minimum criteria in paragraph 5.1.2 must be met to be considered recent and relevant. Projects will be evaluated for recency based on when the project was completed, and projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the description of the project and if it meets the minimum criteria in the solicitation.

Projects that are considered not recent will be considered as not relevant. The relevancy ratings for each project are shown below in Table 2.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

5.2.3 Performance Evaluation.

5.2.3.1. The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to the projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs/CPARS and any additional information about those projects received from references, CPARs, etc. The Government will consider any available CPARs information on the relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor. The Government reserves the right to determine an Offeror’s past performance to be Unacceptable if negative past performance information on relevant projects, as defined in 5.1.2, by the Offeror including information from other sources not submitted in response to this solicitation is discovered.

5.2.3.2. The Government will consider past performance of the offeror and if the offeror is a joint venture, the past performance information submitted for members of a joint venture.

5.2.3.3. Rating Methodology for Factor 2. To be rated “Acceptable” in this factor, Offerors must receive ratings of Satisfactory or better in each Section of PPQs submitted by the Offeror and in the Sections in CPARs evaluations reviewed by the government. Sections in a CPARS evaluation are Quality, Schedule, Cost Control (if applicable), Management, Utilization of Small Business, Regulatory Compliance, and Other Areas such as but not limited to Safety. The elements within each Section are not considered in determining whether an Offeror is Acceptable for this factor. Sections in a PPQ are the individual elements within each Section. For example, Quality Section is not rated however each question/statement such as a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts; b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance; 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) is rated and will be considered individually in the evaluation of this factor. When the SSEB is reviewing information provided by the Offeror or other sources any ratings “Marginal” and below for a project will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for this Factor.

The rating methodology for Factor 2 is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined in Table 3.

5.2.3.4. In case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Table 3. Past Performance Ratings:

Ratings for Factor 2: Past Performance

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

6.1 The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

6.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document whether the Offeror meets or does not meet the minimum requirements in order to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

6.3 The SSEB will review the two Offerors with the lowest price for technical acceptability (Factors 1 reasonableness determination. If the first two offerors are not determined technically acceptable, the SSEB will continue to evaluate subsequent lowest priced offerors until at least two are determined technically acceptable. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness based on a minimum of two technically acceptable offerors. If two technically acceptable offerors proposals are not received, the government will utilize other price analysis techniques described in paragraph 7.3.

6.4 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.)

6.5 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 considering it for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

7. BASIS FOR AWARD

7.1. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, responsibility and technical acceptability. A responsibility determination will be made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.1.

7.2. In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the lowest price technically acceptable, proposals will be evaluated against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

7.3. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors and receiving an “acceptable” rating in all non-price factors. The Government will make award to the lowest priced Offeror who is deemed responsive and responsible and whose price has been determined fair and reasonable. Reasonableness will be established by using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), to determine fairness and reasonableness. Pricing tools such as historical price information, price competition information, or the Independent Government Estimate will be used to determine reasonableness.

7.4. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

7.5. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer.

ATTACHMENT 1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

RFP NUMBER: W912HN22R3004

PROJECT TITLE: SOF Battalion Headquarters

PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Benning, GA

1. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone: Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CPARS)

If a joint venture, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association and provide a DUNS number for each firm.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS.

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 Title:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE SUMMARY SHEET

SOF Battalion Headquarters - Fort Benning, GA

The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Summary Sheet to provide a summary of the projects included in this proposal. The summary sheet shall include information for all columns.

Past Performance Summary Sheet

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Project Name

Contract Number

Contractor

Contract Value

Date Completed or Scheduled to Be Completed

Construction Percent Complete at Time of Solicitation

ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION III

EVALUATION PROCESS AND

PROCEDURES

1. AGENDA

The source selection process for this procurement is based upon the assumption and the specified intent of the Government as stated in the solicitation to award without discussions. The agenda based on this assumption and intent is outlined below. If after receipt of proposals it is subsequently determined discussions are necessary, appropriate steps will be taken and the need for such discussions adequately documented in the contract file IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3):

1. Issue Solicitation

2. Receive Proposals

3. Conduct Evaluation

4. Present Findings to Contracting Officer SSA

5. Establish Competitive Range (if required)

6. Conduct Discussions (if required)

7. Conduct Interim Evaluations (if required)

8. Present Findings to SSA

9. SSA decision

10. Award Contract

11. Debrief Unsuccessful Offerors (if requested)

2. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating. The rating for technical factors will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Acceptable or Unacceptable. See Part II of this plan for definitions of these adjectival ratings.

2. Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. adverse past performance) or to resolve minor and/or clerical errors. Offerors may not submit additional information.

3. Communications. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals leading to establishment of the competitive range.

4. Discussions. Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

5. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

6. Evaluation Notice (EN). The KO’s written notifications to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications or discussions.

7. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

8. Relevancy. As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

9. Requirements Documents. All the aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to Offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

10. Requiring Office. The entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to Offerors.

11. Source Selection Authority (SSA). The official designated to make the source selection decision.

12. Source Selection Evaluation Board. A team that conducts a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria. Ensures the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP, assists the KO in documenting the Source Selection evaluation results and supports any post source selection activities, such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

13. Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD). The document that reflects the SSA’s independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

14. Source Selection Plan (SSP). A plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

3. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This section describes the tasks required for completion of a fair, comprehensive, and impartial source selection process.

1. Evaluations. Evaluations will be conducted. The Chairman will make arrangements for the evaluation upon completion of the screening of proposals by Contracting Division.

a. Each proposal submitted will be evaluated individually and independently.

b. Clarifications of proposals may be requested at any time through the Contract

Specialist to the KO. Clarifications approved for presentation to an Offeror shall be evaluated and incorporated into the SSEB’s findings.

c. Evaluations will be conducted utilizing bid schedules with acceptance dates 0-120 days (bid schedule acceptance date one) if at least one offeror submits a bid schedule that does not require an ATR. In the event that all bid schedules for acceptance date one require an ATR, evaluations will be conducted on bid schedules with acceptance dates 121-240 days (bid schedule acceptance date two). All bid schedules with acceptance dates of 0-120 days will then no longer be considered for award. If during evaluations it is determined that all bid schedules for bid schedule acceptance date one, which do not require an ATR, are found not technically acceptable, evaluators will evaluate all bid schedules acceptance date two.

2. Evaluation Notices. The KO’s written notifications to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications or in support of discussions will be issued, if necessary, upon completion of each evaluation as appropriate and as approved by the KO.

3. Familiarization. All members of the evaluation organization must be familiar with the contents of the solicitation and the requirements of this Source Selection Plan before evaluation begins. The KO will bring the evaluation team members and advisory staff together prior to the evaluation of proposals to discuss the RFP, the rating methodology, and each member’s responsibilities.

4. Receipt and Preparation of Proposals. The Contract Specialist will screen all proposals to ensure that each offer is properly completed, executed, and submitted in accordance with the solicitation requirements. The SSA/KO may remove any Offeror from further consideration if the offer fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP.

The reason for this decision will be fully documented and the Offeror promptly notified.

The price proposals will be evaluated and compiled on an excel spreadsheet abstract recording all offers prices from lowest to highest. After this initial screening, the SSA/KO will forward the Technical proposals to the SSEB for evaluation. The Price proposal will not be provided to the SSEB. Once the SSEB has completed the summary report of the SSEBs evaluation and consensus findings of the technical proposals the SSEB will turn over technical proposals and all evaluation reports and documents to the SSA for review and rendering of the Source Selection Decision.

5. SSEB Evaluation. The evaluation will be documented on the evaluation worksheets shown at Appendix D and conducted in accordance with the guidelines established in this Source Selection Plan. The SSEB will review the two Offerors with the lowest price for technical acceptability with the intent to have at least two offerors who are technically acceptable for price reasonableness determination. If at least two offerors are not determined technically acceptable, the SSEB will continue to evaluate subsequent lowest priced offerors until at least two are determined technically acceptable. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness based on at minimum two technically acceptable offerors.

6. Consensus. Upon completion of individual evaluations, the SSEB team shall meet and establish a final rating for each Offeror on each evaluation factor for any proposals evaluated. Ratings will represent the consensus opinion of the evaluators. The SSEB will record these consensus results and document the basis for each. The SSEB will turn the consensus results over to the SSA/KO.

7. Narrative assessments. A narrative assessment will be completed only on the proposals evaluated (See paragraph 5 SSEB Evaluation for how the technical evaluation will be completed by the SSEB). The narrative(s), in conjunction with the SSA/KO’s independent assessment of the proposals, form the basis for the award decision. Narrative comments must be clear, detailed and self-explanatory. Evaluators must indicate, as a minimum, where the proposal meets or fails to meet minimum requirements.

8. Competitive Range Determination (if required). The Contract Specialist will conduct an analysis of the proposals based on technical acceptability and price. This analysis will be presented to the Contracting Officer in the form of a Competitive Range Memorandum. The KO’s Competitive Range Determination (if required) will be approved by the SSA prior to opening discussions. It is not anticipated that discussions will be conducted or that a competitive range determination will be needed.

9. Proposal Evaluations.

a. The SSEB will review the two Offerors with the lowest price for technical acceptability (for Factors 1 and 2) with the intent to have at least two offerors who are technically acceptable for price reasonableness determination. If at least two offerors are not determined technically acceptable, the SSEB will continue to evaluate subsequent lowest priced offerors until at least two are determined technically acceptable. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to require evaluation of more than two offerors if there are other unknown situations that arise in order to make a fair and reasonable price determination. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness based on at minimum two technically acceptable offerors.

b. Factor 1: The SSEB will independently evaluate Factor 1 by reviewing the Corporate Relevant

Specialized Experience provided by the Offer.

i. The Government will review this factor for acceptability of the criteria required in the solicitation. The Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4.

Table 4. Factor 1 Previous Technical Experience Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

c. Factor 2: The SSEB will independently evaluate Factor 2 Past Performance. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance and solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. See FAR 15.305.

i. The Government may contact the references indicated on each PPQ to validate the information provided by the Offeror and obtain any other additional information as necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance record. Client interviews, if conducted, will be recorded and provided as part of the contract files.

ii. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information. These other sources may include, but are not restricted to CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. Additional interviews with Government personnel will be documented.

iii. Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond to if such information has any bearing or impact on the assessment of the Offeror’s proposal.

iv. Projects will be evaluated for recency and relevancy based on the information provided in the project’s PPQ, each project shall be assigned one of the past performance relevancy ratings in Table 5.

RATING DEFINITION

A ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

• With respect to recency, it will be based on the time period during which past performance references are considered. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not recent per the RFP will be considered “Not Relevant”.

• With respect to relevancy, past performance will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort required. The offeror’s present/past performance will be evaluated against the minimum criteria in paragraph 5.2 of Section 00 21 00.

Table 5. Factor 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

v. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine if the contractor performed acceptably on the contracts. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the projects, and the quality of the Offeror’s performance and usefulness of the information as it applies to past performance to reach an acceptability assessment rating. Using the Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 6.

Table 6. Factor 2 Past Performance Ratings

Ratings for Factor 2: Past Performance

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

d. Upon completion of the technical evaluation of Factor 2, the SSEB Chair will convene the

SSEB for the purpose of establishing a consensus rating for each of the technical factors.

Ratings will not be averaged but will represent the consensus opinion of the evaluators. The SSEB Chair will record these consensus ratings and document the basis for each. A consensus evaluation sheet will be prepared by the SSEB.

e. After a consensus of the technical factors have been completed. The SSEB Chair will then prepare the Preliminary SSEB Summary Report, fully documenting the consensus and narrative assessments for the Offeror’s proposal. The report shall include any identified deficiencies and/or clarifications, to include the Offeror’s response to such clarifications as may have been presented and responded to during the evaluation.

10. Discussions. If necessary, the Contract Specialist will lead discussions with Offerors and will be assisted by the SSEB chair and SSEB. Discussions will be accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs), prepared by the SSEB and reviewed by the SSA/PCO. The ENs shall clearly indicate any proposal deficiency and should discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could in the opinion of the SSA/PCO be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award.

Di…