W912HP-15-R-0007_Amend_6.pdf

W912HP-15-R-0007

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 the this amendment is to clarify Proposal Submissions: Please see Section 00100: Instructions to Bidders: Section 3: General Proposal Submission Requirements. Added Minimum Guaranteed. See Summary for changes.

All Other Terms and Conditions remained unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jul-2015

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-15-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Jun-2015

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

30-Jun-2015

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

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 modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor.

The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406. NOTE: NON-PRICE FACTORS, WHEN

COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE TO PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph C of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph D of this section.

The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A marginal or an unacceptable evaluation for Factors 1 or 2 or a No-confidence assessment for Factor 3 will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Factor 2: Management Approach/Key Subcontractors Factor 3: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR: The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 2, Management Approach/Key Subcontractors is more important than Factors 1 and 3. The non-price factors (factors 1 - 3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (factor 4).

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offerors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will made available for viewing at the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (http://www.fbo.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in FBO. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

2. Inquiries. Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries in writing via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. The bidder inquiry key is BFZEM4-4YV8J6. Further, no questions, unless in the government’s interest, will be answered any later than ten business days prior to the stated deadline for offers. All Offerors are encouraged to register on ProjNet for alerts so as to stay abreast of Q&A’s that are posted in reference to this solicitation. Only self-registered users on ProjNet can submit & review inquiries. To self-register, go to the webpage, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the key for this solicitation listed above and your email address. After initial login, enter all the required information to create your user ID. Verify the information on the next screen and from there you may submit and view inquiries.

Those submitting inquiries will receive a system generated email notification when their inquiry has been processed and answered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

3. General Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Electronic Proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and costs, ALL RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT

SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs is not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email submission is not authorized. ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE FEDBIZOPPS (FBO.GOV) “ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION” FEATURE. The FBO vendor user guide has information & instructions on how to utilize this feature (https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf).

b. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the FBO instructions for uploading files larger than 10MB (java upload). FBO has not posted official file size limitations for its electronic response module, however it has been observed that uploads to FBO tend to be problematic when the files are sized 100MB or greater. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

c. File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties

CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 2.pdf”

(4) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II.pdf”

(5) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II diagrams, figures.pdf”

(6) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume III.pdf”

(7) “W912HP-15-R-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume III price data.docx”

d. File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

e. Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date on this announcement page. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within FBO. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Experience shows that if an upload doesn’t complete until after the deadline, the FBO system WILL

NOT COMPLETE. The FBO system will automatically shut off the “Electronic Submission” feature at the specified deadline--once that occurs, the feature will disappear from the announcement. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline may be emailed to Melisa L Childs, Contract Specialist (melisa.l.childs@usace.army.mil), but be advised they will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

f. Electronic files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Self extracting exe files will not be accepted.

g. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan

2004)” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

4. Submission Requirements, Volume I, Non-Price Proposal: Volume I shall include a section for each Non-Price factor, as described above under Evaluation Factors. Volume I shall be organized as follows:

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one page cover letter, the Proposal Data Sheet not to exceed one page (Appendix D1), and any applicable executed joint venture agreements or other evidence of formal teaming agreements.

b. Section B - Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. Offers shall submit a minimum of three (3) relevant contracts, but no more than five (5). Offerors shall complete and provide a Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix D2. The Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract. Include completed CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DATA SHEETS in addition to your proposal information. A sample data sheet is provided in this Section (See Appendix D2).

c. Section C - Factor 2, Management Approach. The Offerors shall submit a Management Approach Narrative to include quality control plan, organizational structure, proposed major subcontractors and how multiple task orders will be managed simultaneously. Organizational structure should identify key team players, resumes and roles and responsibilities. Clearly but concisely describe the management approach to execute task orders of the type that may be issued under an awarded contract.

i. Minimum Criteria: Key Personnel submitted by the Offeror shall meet the minimum requirements of the

Statement of Work paragraph entitled “Contractor Personnel”.

ii. The narrative should respond to the questions, or address the elements, outlined below:

Briefly describe the contractor’s organization by providing: (a) a staffing matrix showing positions proposed and quantities of each position along with details explaining how Offeror will address surge work (15 or more RFPs and/or 35 active construction projects) (b) an organizational chart showing lines of authority and identifying contractor personnel by name and title, including key subcontractors. (c) for each identified personnel, their qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person on one (1) page per person.

Briefly describe the Offeror’s Quality Control Program.

Briefly describe the Offerors ability to manage multiple task orders simultaneously.

Demonstrate Offeror’s ability to use e4Clicks or other RS Means based software.

d. Section D - Factor 3, Offeror Past Performance. Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix D3 on the each contract submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and/or the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. Also include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

5. Volume II, Price Proposal: Volume II shall include the following:

a. Volume II Price Proposal:

(i) Section A- A completed Standard Form (SF) 1442, using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this solicitation for the contract. As applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment, acknowledging the amendments.

(ii) Section B- A completed Section 600, Representations and Certifications, using a printed copy of

Section 600 included in this solicitation. Please note that the representations and certifications must also be completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at www.sam.gov.

(iii) Section C- Financial Information (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet

Ratings, and or number, banks name and POC, etc.).

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

Incomplete proposals. All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete in accordance with the solicitation and whether they warrant further consideration. Proposals that fail this initial screening process may be rejected and the offeror will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely restate the contractual requirements, but rather provide substantive, understandable and realistic evidence to support promised performance. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of work required may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant W eakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s 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, 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 (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.). 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. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the J.V. submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. The agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), 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. Offerors are reminded that 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 9.104-4, 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. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default.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. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

a. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror which is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team (see previous paragraph on teaming arrangements) the contract must have been awarded to the prime.

b. The contract was completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or has been ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of this RFP.

c. Contracts submitted by the Offeror should have a minor construction or renovation value of no less than $3M for total contract value per year. Contracts submitted shall be similar to IDIQ, multiple award task order contracts or job order contracts.

d. Contract scope may include, but is not limited to the design and construction of repairs; renovations;

alterations; and/or additions to existing buildings such as research and development, medical, academic, secure areas, waterfront, administrative, institutional, pavements, industrial, etc., as well as their corresponding support facilities;

infrastructure such as roads, parking, drainage systems, utility systems, and force protection.

4. NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in

Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

a. Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.

1 . Offerors shall submit at least three (3) and no more than five (5) Contract Information Sheets using Appendix D2 for each IDIQ, multiple award task order contracts or job order contracts. All contracts shall be successfully completed, or substantially completed (at least 1 year of the contract duration complete) within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. As a minimum, the Contract Information Sheets shall provide; the Contract Point of Contact with telephone number, general description, scope, location, cost, and date of completion or anticipated completion date and percent constructed as of the date of the solicitation.

2 . Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience will be evaluated using the following Criteria:

i. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the contractor. The Government may place greater importance on contracts performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy of the contract. Federal Government contract experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience but, may be considered a strength.

ii. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), 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.

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

iv. If the Offeror cannot provide information concerning recent, relevant experience on similar projects or the Offeror has no relevant experience, the Offeror will not be considered for the solicitation.

3. For the Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience evaluation, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. 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.

b. Factor 2, Management Approach/Key Subcontractors.

1 . The Management Approach/Key Subcontractor proposal will be evaluated on the following sub-factors. This information considers the Offeror’s intended management approach to include quality control, organizational structure, proposed key subcontractors and how multiple task orders will be managed simultaneously. Organizational structure should identify key team players, resumes and roles and responsibilities. Clearly but concisely describe the management approach to execute task orders that may be issued under this contract as described in paragraph 1.0 of the statement of work.

i. Minimum Criteria: Key Personnel submitted by the Offeror shall meet the minimum requirements of the

Statement of Work paragraph entitled “Contractor Personnel”.

ii. The narrative should respond to the questions, or address the elements, outlined below:

Briefly describe the contractor’s organization by providing: (a) a staffing matrix showing positions proposed and quantities of each position along with details explaining how Offeror will address surge work (15 or more RFPs and/or 35 active construction projects) (b) an organizational chart showing lines of authority and identifying contractor personnel by name and title, including key subcontractors. (c) for each identified personnel, their qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person on one (1) page per person.

Briefly describe the Offeror’s Quality Control Program.

Briefly describe the Offerors ability to manage multiple task orders simultaneously.

Demonstrate Offeror’s ability to use e4Clicks or other RS Means based software.

2. Management Approach/Key Subcontractors will be evaluated using the following Criteria:

i. 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 Management Approach and it’s capability to execute any task orders that may be issued under an awarded contract.

ii. More consideration will be given to an Offeror for this factor that demonstrates any of the following:

In-house construction capability Formal Teaming arrangement with Key Subcontractors Demonstrated ability to use e4Clicks.

Staffing chart to demonstrate capacity to estimate and propose on up to 15 RFPs at one time.

Staffing chart to demonstrate capacity to manage 35 active projects.

iii. Offerors who submit personnel who do not meet the requirements in the Statement of Work paragraph entitled “Contractor Personnel” shall not be considered.

3. For the Management Approach evaluation, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. 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.

c. Factor 3: Past Performance.

1. The Government’s past performance evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Evaluators will assess past performance on each relevant contract submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience, and as defined above. The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal. Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix D3 on each contract submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and/or the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract information. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. Also include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: each relevant contract submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience, the completed Past Performance Questionnaires, Appendix D3, any additional information received from references, CCASS and CPARS. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, 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, 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. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

3. For the Past Performance evaluation, The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

i. Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

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.

ii. Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

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 be able to ‘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.

5. PRICE FACTOR. Offerors will be required to price all line items for each contract period (base and option years). Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award. 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 completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work.

The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Contract Line Items (CLINS) will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the award. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

a. The price coefficients are defined as a numerical factor that compensates the Contractor for any and all costs (generally indirect costs) and profit not included in the Unit Price Book (UPB) unit pricing. The coefficients shall include all costs not covered in the UPB line items, or not allowed, in the RS MEANS. The coefficients shall include but not be limited to prime and subcontractor overhead, profit, contingencies, labor burden for the prime Contractor and subcontractors, bond premiums, insurance, taxes, any adjustment factors for average TO size, proposal preparation costs for withdrawn TOs, costs associated with procurement of required tools, equipment, software, specifications, computers, compliance with environmental laws, security requirements, and Contractor’s perception of the accuracy of the UPB. Coefficient should also include cost for incidental design, daily cleanup, final cleanup of the project site, dust protection, protection or incidental moving of Government property including furniture, portable toilets, and administrative and technical support. The Non Pre- Priced Item (NPI) coefficient will be considered as 5% weight compared to UPB at 95%

The Government will evaluate the overall coefficients weighted as follows:

Unit Price Book Coefficients:

1. Charleston normal working hours (85%)

2. St. Stephen normal working hours (6%)

3. Charleston non-normal working hours (2%)

4. St. Stephen non-normal working hours (2%)

Non Pre-Priced Item Coefficient:

1. Non Pre-Priced Item (5%)

E. DISCUSSIONS.

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to award without discussions, in accordance with the provisions of the RFP and applicable acquisition regulations. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS as described above, and the Offeror’s proposed price. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(d), however, discussion sessions may be held if the Contracting officer determines them necessary to determine that award will satisfactorily provide the Government its requirement at a fair and reasonable price. Should discussions take place, a competitive range will be established and all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed an opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified in advanced. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

APPENDIX D1:

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This OFFEROR PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL DATA SHEET must be completed and attached as the first page of the body of your proposal.The information required by this data sheet may be completed directly on this form or attached to the form as supplemental data sheets.

1. NAME OF

OFFEROR. Name of

Offeror(s):

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

Firm

1:

Firm

2:

Nature of Association:

2. DUNS NUMBER FOR OFFEROR

(If more than one DUNS number is to be considered, explain affiliation to Offeror)

3. CCASS INDENTIFICATION FOR OFFEROR

4. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

5. CAGE CODE:

6. Tax ID#

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP). List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.

Name of Person Authorized to

Negotiate: Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

APPENDIX D2:

CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DATA SHEET

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

On an attached sheet, provide information for substantially complete or completed projects within the last five years that are similar in terms of cost, complexity, design or features that have been constructed by the Offeror to be used for reference and evaluation purposes. For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Performance period (month/year start to month/year end and # of years complete if underway):

Address of project:

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project (narrative):

How this project to relevant to the requirements of this solicitation (narrative):

Cost/Price Data (must clearly indicate yearly price information):

Initial Award / Year 2 / Year 3/ etc:

Modifications:

Total cost:

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation, as well as a Point of Contact (Name, organization, email, phone number) for each terminated project.

APPENDIX D3:

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone / email::

Point of Contact (name/phone/email):

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number & Title:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION

ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES

DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE

RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.