B.08 - Solicitation Amendment 01 (sf30) - W912HN23R4005 - 24-Series Barracks Repair.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to make administrative changes for clarifications in accordance w ith the submitted Projnet Inquiries.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jul-2023

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 W912HN23R4005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Jul-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

24-Jul-2023

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:

W912HN23R4005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

The contractor period of performance end date has decreased by 100 days from 850 days to 750 days.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

NOTES TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS

1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.1 Barracks Buildings 24406 and 24413, 24401 and 24412, and 24405 are located at Fort Gordon in need of repair and renovation. This work for each building is anticipated to include replacing failed fan coil units with the central HVAC system. The installation of new HVAC controls that includes full integration with UMCS to achieve Army energy goals. The installation of new fire alarm systems. Mold and mildew abatement and remediation. The renovation of all rooms to new standards as provided within the provided RFP package. Installation of new flooring. lighting. and ceilings and the renovation of latrine as specified within the RFP package.

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

1.2.1 This solicitation will result in three (3) standalone C-Type Contracts separated as follows; Bldg. 24406 and 24413, Bldg. 24401 and 24412, and Bldg. 24405

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

1.4 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation will be invited to submit a Phase Two proposal. Those five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors selected for Phase Two will be provided the Technical Specifications for the three projects.

1.5 In Phase Two, the five (5) highly qualified offerors will each be provided the Technical Specification RFPs for projects 24406 and 24413, 24401 and 24412, and 24405. Offerors will submit a Factor 3 – Management Approach and Price proposal on each project. Evaluations of both Phase One and Phase Two factors using a Best Value Tradeoff in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 will be conducted for each contract.

1.5.1 Each Phase Two proposal will be evaluated on an individual basis starting with 24406 and 24413, followed by 24401 and 24412, followed by 24405.

1.5.2 The responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of the criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government will be awarded the contract for Bldg. 24406 and 24413. That offeror will be removed from the remaining highly qualified offerors participating in Phase Two.

1.5.3 Of the remaining highly qualified offerors, the responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of the criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government will be awarded the contract for Bldg. 24401 and 24412.That offeror will be removed from the remaining highly qualified offerors participating in Phase Two.

1.5.4 Of the remaining highly qualified offerors, the responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of the criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government will be awarded the contract for Bldg. 24405.

1.6 No single offeror shall be awarded more than one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 This requirement will be advertised as a competitive 100% Total Small Business Set-Aside Two-Phase Design-Build RFP solicitation; any legally organized firm may submit a proposal. Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.

2.2 Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. The only exception to this is that the designer of record will be evaluated in Factor 2 and information about members of 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 section of Standard Form 1442.

3. SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS

3.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's experience and capability, past performance, and use of small business necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

3.2 Innovative, creative, or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

3.3 The Offeror’s conformance with the specified format, submission requirements, and the Offeror’s attention to detail will be considered during the technical evaluation and trade-off. Material omission(s) may result in a deficiency, which will cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. However, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals.

3.4 Technical proposals that do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be found to have weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.

3.5 Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an Offeror can meet Government needs. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The Offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being assigned a (significant) weakness and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

3.6 Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the Offeror’s failure to comply with the submission instructions.

3.7 Conditioning of Offer. Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal volumes. Inclusion of any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer; see “Instructions to Proposer”, located in Section 00 21 16, for instructions. Notwithstanding the above, the Offeror must clearly describe in the proposal cover sheet submitted with the price volume any exceptions, within the offer, to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation.

3.8 Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information. “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Confidential Project is defined as projects containing confidential information of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security with the unauthorized disclosure. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror – Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”. Files shall not contain classified data.

4. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

4.1 Title Page. Provide the Offer’s name, and date of the submittal.

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

4.3 Electronic Matter Submissions. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) site.

The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in the proposals is prohibited. The offeror’s proposal is due in accordance with block 13 of the

SF1442.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronic via the PIEE Solicitation Module. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION

METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE

ACCEPTED.

4.4 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://piee.eb.mil/

** 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 proposal are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient.

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

4.5 FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included 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.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN23R4005_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912HN23R4005_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

4.6 In order to submit through the Solicitation Module in PIEE, you must have an active Proposal Manager role in PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil/.

4.6.1 To upload the proposal in Solicitation module in PIEE:

4.6.1.1 Ensure you have an active role as with the Proposal Manager in PIEE.

4.6.1.2 Log into PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil/ to access the Solicitation Module.

4.6.1.3 Select Solicitation icon.

4.6.1.4 At the Home screen of the Solicitation Module, select the Search link to find the solicitation you intend to post an offer against.

4.6.1.5 In the Solicitation Search Criteria filter by entering the complete solicitation number and for Status, select Open, then click Search.

4.6.1.6 When search results display, select the solicitation number link to open the solicitation.

4.6.1.7 The solicitation displays, with information as view only.

4.6.1.8 To post the offer, click the Offer tab.

4.6.1.9 Click the Add button to add an offer to the solicitation.

4.6.1.10 Select the applicable CAGE Code for which you are submitting the offer. The list is prefiltered based on the CAGEs in the Proposal Manager’s profile.

4.6.1.11 Click on the Choose Files link to upload attachments that comprise your offer.

4.6.1.12 Enter Signature Date and click Signature button after entering all necessary information.

4.6.1.13 Sign Document pop-up will be displayed requiring the user to enter a Digital Pin and OTP. Click the Sign and Submit button to continue.

4.6.1.14 After successfully adding the Offer a success message of the submission will be displayed providing confirmation of on-time/late proposal receipt.

4.6.2 Refer to Attachment 7 located on the PIEE website for additional guidance on the use of the PIEE Solicitation Module. For addition information on PIEE Vendor Access Instructions or PIEE Solicitation Module

4.6.3 Frequently Asked Questions visit:

https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/solicitation-module

4.6.4 For additional instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

4.6.5 For additional instructions on the Solicitation module and Proposal Manager roles, please refer to the following link:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

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

5.1 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 SAM.gov in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO: W912HN23R4005

TITLE OF PROJECT: Repair Barracks 24-Series Fort Gordon Bidder Inquiry Key: PP6JWH-PJNEPG

5.2 Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

5.2.2 Identify the Agency as USACE.

5.2.3 Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

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

5.2.5 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.

5.2.6 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.

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

5.3 Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 5.2.1 through 5.2.3: same as above.

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

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

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

6. PHASE ONE FORMATTING. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follow:

6.1 VOLUME I (Contract Requirements)

6.1.1 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.

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

6.1.3 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 Unique Entity ID (UEI) number are all included. The UEI number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture, it must also be submitted. A UEI number shall also be provided for the Designer of Record identified in Factor 2. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

6.1.4 TAB D – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1. Note: If the Offeror is not proposing as a Joint Venture, please indicate such under this tab.

6.1.5 TAB E – 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.

6.2 VOLUME II (Phase One Technical Requirements)

6.2.1 TAB F –Joint Venture Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I) Note: If the Offeror is not proposing as a Joint Venture, please indicate such under this tab.

6.2.2 TAB G – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

6.2.3 TAB H – FACTOR 2 Design Experience.

7. PHASE TWO FORMATTING. For the most highly qualified Offerors notified to proceed to Phase Two.

7.1 VOLUME III (Contract Requirements and Price Proposal)

7.1.1 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.

7.1.2 TAB B - Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Project Pricing Schedule.

7.1.2 TAB C - Bid Bond – Solicitation Requirement: The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond for the project in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1 “Bid Guarantee. In accordance with the Department of Defense Class Deviation 2020-O0016, an electronic copy of the Bid Bonds must be provided with your proposal. It is not necessary to mail in hardcopies of the bonds. Failure to provide a bid bond guarantee per FAR 52.228-1 could render your bid non-responsive.

7.1.3 TAB D - For Responsibility Determination Documentation, offerors will be required to submit the following:

7.1.3.1 Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g., past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.)

7.1.3.2 Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance, and payment bond amount.

7.2 VOLUME IV (Phase Two Technical Requirements)

7.2.1 TAB E – FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

SECTION XI

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

CRITERIA – PHASE ONE

1. PHASE ONE, VOLUME TWO, TAB G – FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) or CCASS/CPARS. The PPQ is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted.

Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients to ensure timely submittal of completed questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

1.1.1.1 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.

1.1.1.2 The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact (Contract Specialist), MSG Shermaine Malone. Request may be made via email to shermaine.d.malone@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. PPQs 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.

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

1.1.1.4 In addition to the PPQ or CCASS/CPARS, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet shall include information for all columns.

1.1.1.5 Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in Sect. XI para.1.2).

1.1.1.6 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. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Ensure that the PPQs or CCASS/CPARS submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

1.2 PARAMETERS

1.2.1 Offeror shall submit a total of three (3), recent relevant projects that have a minimum value of no less than $10 million each. Projects with similar size, scope, and complexity of the following may be considered relevant projects: Design-build or design-bid-build new construction, repair, or renovation of Barracks, Dormitories, Apartments, Headquarters, Administrative/Office Buildings, or Schools.

1.2.2 At least two (2) of the projects submitted SHALL be Design-Build, one (1) New construction, and one (1) Repair or Renovation of Barracks, Dormitories, Apartments, Headquarters, Administrative/Office Buildings, or Schools.

1.2.3. All projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy.

1.2.3.1 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.

1.2.4 Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) PPQs or CCASS/CPARS in accordance with Sect. XI, para 1.1). Project information on a PPQ shall be limited to the PPQ and one additional page. Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal if the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture, no more than three (3) total project examples may be submitted for the entire JV. If an Offeror submits more than three (3) total project examples, only the first three (3) will be evaluated. Offerors shall submit only projects wherein the Offeror or proposed joint venture members were the prime contractors and played a significant role in the successful completion of the project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit, or team member submitting the offer.

1.2.5 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/UEI numbers identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. If a CPARS evaluation exists for a submitted project, it will be considered.

1.2.6 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.

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

1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.3.1 Past Performance Evaluation

1.3.1.1 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.

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

1.3.1.3 Projects must meet the minimum criteria in sect. XI para 1.2 to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. The

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

1.3.1.4 Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Rating Definition

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

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

1.4 CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

1.4.1 Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence in Past Performance if they demonstrate successful performance in a wide variety of work as described in sect XI, para 1.2. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the project types described in sect XI, para 1.2 Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they submit more than one Design-Build projects. A higher valued project may be looked upon favorably, with greater confidence given to a greater variety of work, with larger dollar values.

Furthermore, a greater weight may be given to those projects that show greater complexity and variety across those mentioned in sect XI, para 1.2

1.4.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience using the sources available to it including, but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs or CCASS/CPARS and any additional information received from references and other CCASS/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.

1.4.3 The Government will consider the recency of the performance, the relevancy including the context of the data, and the quality of the performance and general trends in performance and source of the information to reach a confidence assessment rating using Past Performance Confidence Ratings.

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

1.4.5 Past Performance Confidence Ratings Table

Rating

Definition Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

2. PHASE ONE, VOLUME TWO, TAB H – FACTOR 2 – DESIGN EXPERIENCE

2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PARAMETERS

2.1.1 Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of three (3) single-sided pages describing its Design Experience or the intended Designer of Records' (DOR) experience on three (3) projects that have a minimum construction value of no less than $10 million each and demonstrate the following Design Experience: Design-build or design-bid-build new construction, repair, or renovation of Barracks, Dormitories, Apartments, Headquarters, Administrative/Office Buildings, or Schools.

2.1.2 One of the submitted projects MUST be Design-Build construction. Projects must be fully designed within eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the AE, point of contact and date of design completion.

2.1.3 In addition to the three (3) 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.).

2.1.4 NOTE: Government reserves the right to check past performance on any of the projects submitted via any means available such as CCASS or interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.2.1 DESIGN EXPERIENCE

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

2.2.1.2 In Factor 2, the Government will also assess the extent to which the offeror’s or intended DOR’s design experience demonstrates an adequate approach to the design-build process and an understanding of important aspects of design-build contracting, such as the relationship between the Prime and DOR for the performance of the subsequent contract.

2.2.1.3 Offerors may receive additional consideration in meeting the requirements of this Factor if they are able to demonstrate the successful design experience of the DOR in a wide variety of work as described in sect XI, para 2.1 and subparagraphs.

Conversely, the DORs may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the project types described in sect XI, para 2.1 DORs may receive additional consideration from the SSEB if they submit more than one Design-Build project. DORs may also receive additional consideration if they submit evidence of business agreement/level of commitment to the Prime Offeror.

2.2.1.4 Design Experience Ratings – Design Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.4 Risk Definition Table

Adjectival

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 contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. 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 performance to an unacceptable level.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PHASE ONE FACTORS

3.1 NON-COST FACTORS

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

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

4. PHASE ONE – PROPOSAL EVALUATION

4.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. An initial review will take place to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that a technical proposal was received at the Phase it was required.

4.2 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.

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

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

SECTION XII

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

CRITERIA - PHASE TWO

1. PHASE TWO, VOLUME III – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE

PROPOSAL

1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.1.1 See Part II, Section X, Para. 7 for Volume III tabbing and format requirements

1.1.2 An initial review will take place to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

1.1.3 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.

2. PHASE TWO, VOLUME IV – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, TAB F – FACTOR 3 –

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PARAMETERS

2.1.1 Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed eight (8) single sided pages, including charts and graphs that outlines how the Offeror will plan, execute, monitor, and control the project under this contract. It should be presented as a high-level management approach that the Offeror shall use when executing the work under this contract.

2.1.2 The Management Approach should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirement and demonstrate compliance with requirements of the Scope of Work contained in the RFP.

2.1.3 The Management Approach Plan shall address the following key points:

2.1.3.1 Key Point 1: Team Management: The Offeror shall provide a corporate organization chart that clearly indicates how the firm plans to organize and execute the Scope of Work of the project. Include any key firms/subs or types of subcontractors that participate in the work. The organization chart should diagram the roles, responsibilities, and relationships between the prime contractor and subcontractors for the project, and the contracting organization. The chart should clearly define lines of responsibility and communication.

2.1.3.2 Key Point 2: Schedule Management: Describe the Offeror’s approach to schedule development and management. Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to proactively develop, manage, and adapt the project schedule to depict the critical path over the period of performance.

2.1.3.3 Key Point 3: Quality Management: Describe the Offeror’s Design and Construction Quality Control Program. Demonstrate the ability to comply with Government quality control management processes, Quality Control analysis and monitoring of performance against requirements and standards.

2.1.3.4 Key Point 4: Change Management: Describe the Offeror’s process for integrating design changes after award and handling construction changes and/or modifications. Include any proposed processes for addressing and resolving construction issues, Request for Information (RFI’s), communication with Government representatives, and contractor’s organizational management involvement throughout the Change Management process.

2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

2.2.1 The Management Approach Plan should describe how the Offeror plans and executes the work in each of the management key points listed in sect XII, para 2.1.

2.2.2 Strengths and Weaknesses: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of the design-build and design-bid-build process and its capability to execute an awarded contract.

2.2.3 The Offeror will be evaluated on how well defined and clear the Management Approach is for the submission requirements listed in sect XII, para 2 above.

2.2.4 Management Approach – FACTOR 3 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.5 Definition of Risk Table

Adjectival

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 contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. 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 performance to an unacceptable level.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS – PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO

3.1 FACTOR 1 (Past Performance) is equal in importance to FACTOR 3 (Management

Approach)

3.2 FACTOR 2 (Design Experience) is less important than either FACTOR 1 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 3 (Management Approach)

3.3 FACTOR 3 (Management Approach) is equal in importance to FACTOR 1 (Past Performance) and both are more important than FACTOR 2 (Design Experience)

4. PHASE TWO – PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND PROCESS

4.1 Each Phase Two proposal will be evaluated on an individual basis starting with 24406 and 24413, followed by 24401 and 24412, followed by 24405.

4.2 The source selection organization is established as a separate organization and management chain of command whose only purpose is to accomplish the objective above. The organization consists of a Source Selection Authority (SSA) and Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The organization will also have a separate Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). The organization is designed to ensure active ongoing involvement of appropriate contracting, technical, logistics, legal, price analysis, small business, and other functional staff management expertise.

4.3 Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered in reference to Phase II evaluations. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors.

4.4 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.

4.4.1 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.

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

4.6 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.

4.7 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.

5. PRICE

5.1 All Phase One and Phase Two non-cost factors, when combined, are equal in importance to Price.

5.2 Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the best value in Phase II prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. Pricing shall be completed and submitted on the pricing schedule shown at section 00 10 00—Solicitation Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

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

5.4 The Government shall use the base bid and all options from the price schedule as the evaluated price for making the best value decision.

5.5 The Offeror’s team may…