14-R-0012_Amendment_2.pdf

W912HP-14-R-0012

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 modification is to replace current SOLICITATION SECTION 00100 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS w ith SOLICITATION SECTION 00100 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS (Revision 1). All Changes are highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Mar-2014

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 W912HP-14-R-0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Feb-2014

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

27-Mar-2014

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

DISTRICT, CONTRACTING DIVISION

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 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 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

REVISED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION RE

SOLICITATION SECTION

00100 (Revision 1)

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND

INSTRUCTIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD PHASE I

For the purposes this Phase I solicitation, the Government will utilize a Two-Phase Design- Build, Request for Proposal (RFP) utilizing the trade-off process in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1 and FAR Part 36.3 that will result in awards based on Best Value to the Government.

In Phase I of this process, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. Phase I of this procurement will result in a narrowing of Offerors’, up to seven (7) firms that will be selected to submit Technical and Price proposals in Phase II.

In Phase II, a seed project will be issued by amendment that will be used in determining the award of the first task order. Up to five (5) could be awarded a contract to remain in the MATOC pool. For evaluation purposes only in determining the competitive range, the Government will calculate the total evaluated price proposal, utilizing the sum of the seed project. NOTE: Factors from Phase I will be carried over to Phase II.

The Government will evaluate proposals for Phase I in accordance with the criteria described herein.

The Government reserves the right to reject any and/all offers in either Phase I or Phase II.

Phase II will involve the submission of technical and price proposals in response to the seed project. One contract would be awarded to include the seed project. Each awardee will receive a minimum guarantee of $5,000. All ratings from Phase 1 will be carried over into Phase II, unless new or revised information is provided. The Government is not obligated to award an MATOC contract to all Offerors competing in Phase II.

In Phase I, all factors are considered equal.

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PHASE I

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Any legally organized Offeror qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations and which meets the SBA size, affiliation, and other applicable 8(a) parameters may submit a proposal. Team arrangements (joint ventures, mentor-protégé) must meet 8(a)-specific requirements in addition to the CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS set forth below.

2. CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS:

a. Recognition of Contractor Teams. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, it is Government policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors and sub-factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member. The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent;

substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. In the case of prime-sub teams, the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so.

b.Team Agreement. The team agreement submitted with the proposal will govern the performance of the work by the team. The agreement must address the following items:

identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement. In the case of Joint Ventures or other partnerships seeking award to the team as a prime contractor, the agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party. In the case of a prime-sub team, the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Contractor teams should not submit an agreement in their proposal that is subject to substantive revision because the agreement will be part of the evaluation process. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. In the case of prime-sub teams, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement.

c. Restriction on Substitution. Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT – PHASE I:

a. Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

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

If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

c. Binders. Proposals shall be submitted in tabbed, three ring binders.

d. Offerors SHALL submit a hard copy of the original Volume I and a hard copy of the original Volume II. Offerors SHALL also submit four (4) additional hard copies of Volume II with one (1) electronic copy of Volume II on a CD. Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide the requisite number of copies may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal. Failure to provide any copies of Volume I or Volume II may result in the Offeror’s proposal being eliminated.

VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B - Section 00600 – Representations and Certifications.

For 8(a) Small Businesses, you must submit the Small Business Administration Approval Letter verifying that your business has been approved as such.

TAB C – Proposal Data Sheet – See Appendix C: Enclosure 1

Section. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number is all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D – Teaming Agreement and Narratives, if applicable. Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

TAB E –Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount. The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond but is required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. Any letter found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable. FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a Bid Bond will be required for each task order.

VOLUME 2

TAB F- FACTOR 1 CORPORATE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

TAB G- FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

TAB H- FACTOR 3 ORGANIZATION APPROACH

C. EVALUATION APPROACH - PHASE I

a. Phase I of the procurement process will result in up to a maximum of seven (7) Offerors.

Phase I includes the following evaluation factors: Corporate Specialized Experience (including Construction and Design Firm and proposed major subcontractors), Past Performance, (including Construction and Design Firm) and Organization Approach. Only those Offerors selected in Phase I will be allowed to proceed into Phase II. If at least two Offerors remain in the pool during contract duration, this will satisfy the competitive requirements and preclude the necessity of soliciting for a replacement contractor if for any reason one of the contracts is terminated or one of the Offerors is excluded from participation in the process.

b. In order to be eligible for Phase II proposals must meet the minimum criteria stated in the Phase I RFP, Offerors must be responsible and a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each of the Technical Factors.

c. If the Offeror consists of a design-build team or other team as described in FAR 9.601, the Offeror must meet the requirements for CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS, above, for all team members

D. PHASE I FACTORS AND RATINGS

1. PHASE 1 - FACTOR 1 CORPORATE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent similar corporate experience of the prime contractor and its team members including the design firm, if any, in construction or design-build. Projects procured under indefinite or definite delivery or requirements type contracts will be evaluated on an individual task/delivery order basis. The Government will evaluate the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s corporate specialized experience on projects that meet the minimum criteria and are similar in nature, size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this RFP.

b. The Offeror shall demonstrate representative corporate experience on projects using Appendix D, Enclosure 1; Corporate Specialized Experience Data Sheet. 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 similar to the requirements of this RFP rather than the umbrella contract.

c. Minimum Criteria: Projects submitted by the Offeror must meet the following, as a minimum:

Number of Projects: Offerors must submit three (3) projects meeting the criteria, below. For Offerors submitting as a Teaming Arrangement, each firm/contractor in the

Teaming Arrangement shall submit three (3) projects each, at least one of which was performed jointly by the proposed team members. Submitted projects performed jointly by the proposed team members will be credited as one project for each team member.

Value of Projects: Projects submitted must have a minimum value of no less than $3 million dollars on at least one of the projects and $1.5 million dollars on at least two of the projects submitted. In the case of recognized teaming arrangements including an A/E team member, the three projects submitted for the AE Team Member must have a minimum value of $500 thousand dollars each. The Government will not allow multiple projects, such as individual task orders, to be combined to meet the minimum value.

Recency of Projects: All projects shall be successfully completed, or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

Similarity of Projects: Collectively, the projects submitted must include design-build, new construction, whole building rehabilitation, and facilities maintenance or repair.

The projects should demonstrate examples of the following types of work: site work, road work, mechanical systems, utility systems, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural systems including but not limited to seismic and progressive collapse, instrumentation, security and safety areas of Government facilities.

As a minimum, the Corporate Specialized Experience Data Sheets shall provide; the Project Point of Contact with telephone number, role and function performed on project, significance of role to overall project, project description (title), scope, location, cost (of specific contract action), and date of completion or anticipated completion date and percent constructed as of the date of the solicitation.

Where performance of a base contract and one or more contract options is relied upon to meet any criterion, the same base contract and one or more contract options must meet all of the value, recency, or relevancy criteria of the Specialized Corporate Experience requirements.

NOTE: An Offeror who does not meet the minimum requirements above will be eliminated from further evaluation, except that an Offeror possibly will not be eliminated if discussions are held which include this factor.

d. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or by contacting owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

e. The Technical/Risk Ratings to be used for this Factor, listed below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional experience and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates thorough experience and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates adequate experience and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate experience and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2. PHASE I - FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

a. The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant it is, resulting in a Relevancy Rating. The second is to determine how well a contractor performed on the projects, which results in a performance confidence assessment rating.

b. Offerors shall provide past performance information for each project submitted for Factor One –Corporate Specialized Experience. However, the Government is not limited to this information but may also consider an Offeror’s or subcontractor’s past performance on other projects based on information from any source available to it.

c. If the Offeror is employing a recognized team arrangement, then Past Performance Information must be completed for each team member submitting projects (performed individually or as part of the same team) for the purpose of meeting the Corporate Specialized Experience criteria. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify who will perform the major or critical aspects of the project. Regardless of whether they are part of a recognized team arrangement or not, the Government reserves the right to evaluate the past performance of any subcontractor or parent/subsidiary/affiliate identified in the Offeror’s proposal as part of its assessment of the acceptability of that Offeror’s proposal. The consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning other than the prime contractor will take into account the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles.

d. Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet. The Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Appendix E, Enclosure 1) is provided for the Offeror and its team members to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet and at a minimum include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project; 3) Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation; 4) Scheduled completion date; and 5) Indicate if the project was design-bid-build, design build or CMS at Risk.

e. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ included in the solicitation (Appendix E, Enclosure 2) is provided for the Offeror and its team members to submit to the client for each project submitted under Factor 1. Submit completed PPQs with the proposal. If the Offeror cannot obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal due date, then complete and submit the first page of the PPQ showing all contact and client info with the proposal. The Offeror shall provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information in a timely manner. If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, via email at angela.kelly@usace.army.mil NO LATER THAN 3 days prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs by reference.

f. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, PPQs submitted on prior RFPs, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

g. Relevancy Evaluation: Projects will be evaluated to determine how relevant the projects are compared to the effort required in this solicitation. Aspects of projects to be evaluated for relevance include, without limitation, similarity of scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the Offeror. The project description in section 4 of the PPQ shall include the characteristics of the projects.

h. Performance Confidence Evaluation: Offerors shall provide for each submitted project for Factor One –Corporate Specialized Experience a copy of any interim and the final performance evaluations for the project. Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation or appreciation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

1. For any projects that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the

Offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

2. Regardless of the rating or evaluation terminology used in any past performance information, the Government will make an independent determination of the acceptability or non-acceptability of an Offeror’s past performance based on the totality of information considered. Offerors shall 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.

3. The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings below.

4. If 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 this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

i. The following Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Performance Confidence Assessments will be used:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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 no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

3. PHASE I – FACTOR 3 ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH

a. Provide information that describes the Offeror’s organization approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements herein. Limit the information to twelve (12) pages or less excluding resumes. Clearly but concisely describe the organizational project management and execution.

b. Offeror Understanding: Describe the Offeror’s understanding of the design challenges and risks with respect to the scope of this contract. Specifically address the topics identified below:

1. Organization: Describe team members (Recognized Team Arrangements or otherwise), their resources and how their resources will be utilized. Identify the roles, responsibilities and qualifications of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of both the design and construction phases. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions by function, name, responsibilities, firm affiliations, office locations and authority. Key personnel must include the prime contractor’s project manager responsible for design and construction, prime contractor’s design manager and the identified designers of record (Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer), Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and Safety Manager. For recognized contractor team arrangements, the organizational chart must integrate Key Personnel of the different team members.

A maximum three (3) page resume, including at a minimum, the required information for construction personnel as shown on Appendix D Enclosure 2 and for design personnel as shown on Appendix D Enclosure 3 shall be submitted for each key position and must clearly substantiate proposed person currently meets the minimum requirements and responsibilities listed below for the position. Resumes shall not include personal information such as individual’s social, civic or fraternal activities.

Key Personnel Responsibilities and Minimum Requirements Prime Contractor’s Project Manager Responsible

The single point of contact and the person responsible for all design and construction operations, with a minimum of 3 years experience working as a Construction Project Manager on projects much like this solicitation. This person may be located on-site or in the home office. The projects listed in the resume of experience must clearly for design and construction show at least 3 years of construction project management experience and the duties that were performed as manager on those projects.

Prime contractor’s design manager

Must be a registered Architect or Engineer demonstrating a minimum of 5 years experience as a Design Project Manager responsible for the overall project management activities of all design disciplines. This individual is also to demonstrated experience on design-build projects demonstrating that they are capable of interfacing the design effort with the Construction Project Manager and Construction On-Site Superintendent.When listing project experience on the resume;

demonstrate at least 5 years of project experience where the role of “Design Project Manager” was performed.

Designers of Record:

Architect Lead design architect must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years of design experience much like what will be required on this project.

Emphasize any experience designing to Department of Defense (DoD) design criteria.

Mechanical Engineer

Lead design engineer must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years of design experience much like what will be required on this project.

Electrical Engineer

Lead design engineer must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years design experience much like what will be required on this project.

Civil Engineer Lead design engineer must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years design experience much like what will be required on this project.

Structural Engineer

Lead design engineer must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years design experience much like what will be required on this project.

Fire Protection Engineer

Lead design engineer must demonstrate a minimum of 3 years specialized, design experience directly related to fire protection.

Emphasize any fire protection design experience applying DoD Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) for fire protection systems and explosive safety criteria.

Site Superintendent

The single point of contact and the person in charge of all on-site operations; minimum experience requirements for the onsite superintendent are 3 years experience as an on-site superintendent, managing multiple trades and subcontractors on projects that are much like this solicitation. The projects listed in the resume of experience must clearly show at a minimum 3 years of on-site superintendent experience and the duties that were performed as on-site superintendent on those projects.

Quality Control Manager

The CQC System Manager must be a construction person with a minimum of 10 years in related work. In addition to the above experience and/or education requirements, the CQC System Manager must have completed the course entitled "Construction Quality Management For Contractors".

Safety Manager

The SSHO's training, experience, and qualifications shall be as required by EM 385-1-1 paragraph 01.A.17, entitled SITE SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICER (SSHO), and all associated sub-paragraphs.

2. Approach for Design and Construction: Describe your approach to performing design and construction for the scope of this contract. Include any considerations of fast-tracking design and construction. Discuss how design and construction is completed on short time-lined renovation projects typical to government operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements

3. Collaborative Approach for Design and Construction: Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during design and construction. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design.

Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

4. Subcontractor Approach and Management: Describe how subcontractors are managed by the contractor. Discuss how subcontract relationships are structured to assure proper balance and flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities, and properly balanced and proportioned risk management. Discuss how non-performance by subcontractors is handled by the general contractor.

5. Planning and Scheduling: Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan design and construction and how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth or ‘schedule creep”. Discuss experience with interfacing scheduling software with Resident Management System (RMS) if applicable.

6. Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control management approach.

Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality, track design evolution and changes, and coordinate schedules to facilitate more efficient Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation

7. Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: Provide a consolidated list of key personnel with name, position title and description of project responsibility for each. Provide past performance experience and evaluations of these key individuals. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the cited project examples. If re-assignment of personnel is considered possible, provide alternate professionals in each assignment. Include the prime contractor's project manager responsible for design and construction, prime contractor’s design manager and the designers of record.

c. The Technical/Risk Ratings to be used for this Factor, listed below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

E. EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

1. PHASE I - FACTOR 1 - CORPORATE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

a. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror meets the minimum criteria for this factor. An Offeror who does not meet the minimum criteria will be eliminated from further evaluation, with the possible exception where discussions are held and include this factor. If projects submitted are of a larger value the Offeror could be rated more favorably. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon the overall role performed and similarity of the project.

Where an Offeror’s experience includes that of parent or affiliated companies, the Government will determine the weight to be accorded that experience based on supporting documentation in the proposal. Offerors may identify federal, state and local government, or private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If projects were design-build, so identify them.

b. Similar projects which meet more of the following (or additional similar) types of work can be rated more favorably: site work, road work, mechanical systems, utility systems, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural systems including but not limited to seismic and progressive collapse, instrumentation, security and safety areas of Government facilities. Projects which meet some or all of the additional criteria specified in paragraph (c) below may be given more weight by the Government in determining the appropriate rating.

c. Additional Criteria:

The extent of Design Build experience Previous Team Experience w/ proposed team member(s) Qualifications and experience in sustainable development and design of the Design Firms based on the US Green Building Council’s LEED Green Build Reference Guide Phased Renovations. Renovation projects, minimum of 10,000 SF, which required phasing among multiple buildings in a single complex or a single structure that required a portion of the building or complex to remain occupied and/or in operation while renovations were in progress.

Large Renovation projects. Projects 20,000 SF or more that involved complete gutting and reconfiguring of existing multistory building; buildings in which interior finishes have been completely refurbished, and the fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems have been upgraded to code; or a Historic structure that has had the floor plans successfully rearranged with the majority of their interior walls, finishes, fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems upgraded, while maintaining their exterior historic appearance and finishes.

DOD and/or Army Corps of Engineers Construction Experience.

2. PHASE I - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Relevancy.

Past performance that is more relevant will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In addition to the similarity of scope, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by an Offeror, the relevance of past performance will be assessed based on the similarity of the types of work to the following: design build, new construction, whole building rehabilitation, and maintenance or repair of situations relating, but not limited to, site work, road work, mechanical systems, utility systems, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural systems, instrumentation, security and safety areas of Government facilities. The relevance of past performance will also be assessed against the additional criteria, below:

Previous Team Experience w/ proposed team member(s) Qualifications and experience in sustainable development and design of the Design Firms based on the US Green Building Council’s LEED Green Build Reference Guide Phased Renovations. Renovation projects, minimum of 10,000 SF, which required phasing among multiple buildings in a single complex or a single structure that required a portion of the building or complex to remain occupied and/or in operation while renovations were in progress.

Large Renovation projects. Projects 20,000 SF or more that involved complete gutting and reconfiguring of existing multistory building; buildings in which interior finishes have been completely refurbished, and the fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems have been upgraded to code; or a Historic structure that has had the floor plans successfully rearranged with the majority of their interior walls, finishes, fire protection, electrical and mechanical systems upgraded, while maintaining their exterior historic appearance and finishes.

DOD and/or Army Corps of Engineers Construction Experience.

b. Performance Confidence.

1. The Government will evaluate and review the completed PPQs and other available past performance data for each of the submitted projects, and may also evaluate additional past performance information available to it. The purpose is to determine how well the contractor performed on past contracts. Negative past performance history may include, without limitation: negative ratings (marginal or unsatisfactory) in a Government database that is less than three years old; letters of concern that have not been materially refuted, unresolved show cause or cure letters, terminations for default, or other documentary evidence within the last three years that the Offeror cannot justify; or, if the project experienced a delay greater than 50% without justification, or there were any fatalities on the job site.

2. Contractor Team Arrangements Evaluation. There will be a single past performance rating for each Offeror. Poor past performance by a member of a contractor team (to include subcontractors and parents/subsidiaries/affiliates) will be reflected in the Performance Confidence Assessment.

3. The Government will evaluate past performance in terms of the elements listed below:

• Quality of Construction. Based on information provided in the questionnaire and other information, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror’s team.

• Schedule/Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

• Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

• Management/Personnel/Labor. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors on past projects.

• Cost/Financial Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s).

• Safety Security. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the Offeror ability to maintain an environment of safety and was the Offeror adhere to its approved safety plan.

• General. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the Offeror ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations.

4. If 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 this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).”

3. PHASE I - FACTOR 3 ORGANIZATION APPROACH

a. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the organization approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the scope and the capability to execute the contract. This is not an all-inclusive list. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. The contributions of joint venturers and other team members should be commensurate with their skills and background.

b. Evaluations will include:

1. Offeror Understanding: The government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding for clarity and conciseness of the challenges and risks of the scope of this contract.

2. Approach for Design and Construction: The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support aggressive schedules. In addition, clear and concise proposed phasing procedures for design and construction are highly valued and will be rated higher.

3. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer. The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the designs. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations. Contractors that include fire protection/mechanical commissioning agents at the design phase of their projects are important to the government and demonstrate the contractors’ ability to resource and plan early in project stages to prevent cost growth and schedule creep during the later stages of project finishing and close out.

4. Subcontractor Approach and Management: The government will evaluate the general contractor’s ability to develop and maintain strong subcontractor and small business relationships. The government will evaluate the general contractor’s subcontractor management model and processes.

5. Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling capabilities to manage an integrated fast track design-build schedule as it relates to design and construction of the scope of this contract.

6. Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

7. Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience: The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction. Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government.

8. How well the Offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work.

Additional consideration will be given to previous design-build experience among key personnel. The Government will evaluate whether designers of record are registered, experienced and qualified.

4. Phase 2: For those Offerors selected to participate in Phase II, specific information will be provided by amendment to the solicitation.

F. DISCUSSIONS:

The source selection process for this procurement is based upon the assumption and the specified intent of the Government to award without discussions.