B._AMD_0001_Solicitation_W912HP19R2000_Reception_Complex.pdf

W912HP19R2000

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

Solicitation W912HP19R2000, Reception Complex Phase 1, is hereby amended to revise specifications, draw ings as detailed in the Summary of Changes on next page. In addition, paragraphs 3.1.1.5, 3.1.2.1 and 3.3.1.2 of the Evaluation criteria has been revised as w ell as the proposal due date. A Summary of Changes can be found on the continuation pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Aug-2019

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 W912HP19R2000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Aug-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Aug-2019

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 SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

A. CONTRACT CHANGES: The Technical proposal shall be submitted by the original proposal due date of 6 September 2019 @ 2:00pm EST. However, the Government will extend the due date of the Price Proposal to be submitted to Amy Rivers at amy.s.rivers@usace.army.mil no later than Friday, 13 September at 10:00am EST.

B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: The revised and added Sections listed below (revised and added by Amendment No. 0001) are hereby added to and made a part of the solicitation. Revised or added information is underlined and deleted information is struck out.

Revisions can be located in the appropriate volume of specifications by searching for an asterisk and amendment number (i.e., *1).

Specifications Volumes 1-3 Revised Sections Revised Sections (cont.) Added Sections

01 11 00 07 42 13 02 41 00 01 45 00 10 14 02 02 82 00 01 45 35 10 56 13 01 57 19 11 13 19.13

01 74 19.37 11 21 73 04 20 00 13 34 19 05 40 00 13 48 00 06 10 00 23 05 48.19 07 22 00 23 64 10 07 41 13 26 51 00

Specifications Volume 5 Revised Sections Added Sections

11 46 01.06 13 31 23 13 34 23.13

C. CONTRACT DRAWINGS –

Volume 1:

Sheets CG504, CG505, CE001, CE002, CE003, CE004, CE005, CE006, CE101, CE101A, CE101B, CE101C, CE101D, CE101E, CE101F, CE101G, CE102, CE102A, CE102B, CE102C, CE102D, CE102E, CE102F, CE102G, CE103, CE103A, CE103B, CE103C, CE103D, CE103E, CE103F, CE103G, CE501, CE502, CE503, CE504, CE505, CE506, CE507, CE508, CE509, CE510, ED106, E-001, TN104, TN106, TN108, TN108A, TN110, TN111, TN601, TN602, and TN603 with Revision 1 dated 20 August 2019 are hereby added to and made a part of the Contract Drawings.

Volume 2:

Sheets FA001, EL502, EL601, EL603, EL604, TN001, TN100, TN101, TN102, TN103, TN104, TN502, and TN601 with Revision 1 dated 20 August 2019 are hereby added to and made a part of the Contract Drawings.

Volume 3:

Sheets G002, A014, QF001, QF111, QF112, QF211, QF212, QF223, QF224, QF517, QF518, QF600, QF602, QF604, P301, P302, P310, P311, P502, EP401, EP402, EP406, E601, E717, E720, T001, T101, T102, T103, T105, T106 with Revision 1 dated 20 August 2019 are hereby added to and made a part of the Contract Drawings.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.0 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

1.1. General. Since the proposal will describe the capability of the offeror to perform any resulting contract, it should be specific and complete in every detail. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straight-forward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. It is the offeror's responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal in sufficient detail to permit a complete and accurate evaluation, and the agency will not adapt its evaluation to match an offeror's submission, nor will it go in search of information that an offeror has omitted or failed adequately to present or organize. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the non-price requirements or the work statement with such things as a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an adequate understanding of a requirement or a capability to perform.

1.2. Proposal Submissions and the Best Value Trade-off Source Selection Process. This process requires offerors to submit technical and performance capability information for evaluation by the Government against the uniform baseline of minimum requirements identified in evaluation factors. Each of the factors will berevaluated against the evaluation criteria set out in this section.

1.3. The Government intends to award a firm fixed price contract and make an award without holding discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, offerors should include their best proposal (price and technical) in the initial offer.

Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) later determines them to be necessary. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Who May Submit: The requirement will be advertised for full and open competition; any legally organized firm may submit a proposal.

2.2. Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor.

2.3 Contractor Team Arrangements.

2.3.1 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. For joint venture teams, the proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. 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, regardless of whether a formal team arrangement is proposed or recognized, 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. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify who will perform the major or critical aspects of the project.

2.3.2 Joint Venture Team Agreement. The team agreement will be submitted with the proposal and it will govern the performance of the work by the joint venture. The agreement must address the following items: identification of team members, a delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, the duration of the agreement, and the percentages of the participants including the controlling party. Agreements should not be 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.

2.3.3 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 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. Reference UAI 5152.236-9011 Design-Build Construction Contracts.

2.4 Proposal Submission Requirements.

2.4.1 Submission Deadline: Proposals must be received by the Charleston District no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.4.2 Submission Instructions: The offeror shall submit electronic files as delineated below. Facsimile, hand carried and USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery is not authorized.

File Electronic File Name

Electronic Submission Requirements Format

Cover Letter 00CovLtr Limit 1 page (Reference FAR 52.215- 1(c)(2), Information to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition.)

pdf

Factor 1: Specialized Corporate Experience

01CorpExp Information shall be submitted on the Descriptive Summary Sheet (Blocks 1-5) at Attachment 2. Limit 2 pages per project (One Summary Sheet page and one optional continuation page).

pdf

Factor 2: Past Performance

02PastPerf Performance Evaluations

- USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Submit both Attachment 2 & 3 as provided to the client) -Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received, if any -(no page limit) pdf

Factor 3:

Management

03Management Management Narrative See paragraph 3.4.

pdf

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

04SmallBusPart Small Business Participation Narrative See Paragraph 3.5 pdf

Teaming Agreement 05TeamAgree Joint Venture and/or Teaming Agreement, if applicable. (no page limit). See paragraph 2.3.

Proposal Data Sheet 06DataSht See format in Section Attachment 1. A DUNS number shall be provided for each company identified in any proposed teaming arrangement. If JV, a DUNS shall be provided for the JV.

pdf

Additional Submissions

07SF1442 Completed and signed by an official(s) with the authority to contractually bind the company IAW FAR 4.102. Acknowledge all Amendments in Block 19.

pdf

08Price See Section 00 10 00. Prices must be inserted on all CLINs pdf

09BidBond See FAR Clause 52.228-1. Shall be fully executed by the surety and original must be mailed (See Para 2.4.8)

010RepsCerts See paragraph 2.4.9 pdf 11Financials Statements must include three years’ worth of Balance Sheets and Income Statements.

See paragraph 2.4.10 pdf

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).

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.

2.4.3 Format: Proposals shall be in a narrative format. The submission shall be typed, neatly organized, clearly indexed, logically assembled, and written in the English language. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be provided. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. A standard, 11-point minimum font size applies. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. Headers and footers may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

Clearly identify the “original” cost/price proposal and the “original” technical proposal on the cover. Any information that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) shall be indicated as follows: cover shall be marked “Revision Dated: MM/DD/YYYY,” pages shall be of a different color, all text additions/deletions shall be clearly indicated, and sections changed shall be marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be marked “Revision Dated: MM/DD/YYYY.”

NOTE: 11X17 formatted pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations ONLY.

2.4.4 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 Offerors Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e).

2.4.5 Electronic Files. Electronic files shall be provided in a pdf format and 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.

2.4.6 All documents must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. No dollar amounts from the Price file are to be included in the other files or documents.

2.4.7 Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation, such as company brochures or other information, will not be considered part of the proposal or used to determine whether the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.4.8 BID BONDS: See Clause 52.228-1. The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond.

Photocopied or electronically scanned bid bonds are not acceptable and may lead to the rejection of the proposal as non-responsive. The Bid Bonds must be fully executed and a hard copy original mailed to Ms. Amy Rivers (CESAC-CT), USACE, Charleston District, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston SC 29403.

2.4.9 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS - FAR Clause 52.204-8, “ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (DEC 2014)”: Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official(s) of the firm shall sign all certifications requiring original signature. NOTE: As an alternative to above, each offeror may submit a copy of their current online Representations and Certifications, also referred to as an Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) to comply with the requirements of this TAB.

2.4.10 FINANCIAL INFORMATION: In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, responsibility will be determined, prior to award, by the Contracting Officer through the performance of a pre-award survey. To facilitate this survey, each Offeror shall submit the most recent three consecutive years’ worth of financial statements. The statements must include a Balance Sheet and Income Statement. Include the names of banks and other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, Point of Contact and phone number). Please ensure the Bank is prepared to provide necessary information regarding average balances in your operating accounts, lines of credit and credit history. If the financial statements are more than 60 days old, attach a certificate stating that the financial condition is substantially the same, or if not the same, describe the changes which have taken place since the financial statements were prepared. Provide evidence of adequate financing arrangements, such as commitments from lending institutions, etc., to perform this contract. This information will be treated confidentially but may be verified. For a newly formed JV, each JV member must submit financial statements and information. (Proposals including proprietary or trade secret information shall be marked consistent with FAR 52.215-1(e).

B. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.0 Non-Price Factors

3.1 FACTOR ONE: SPECIALIZED CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

3.1.1 Submission Requirements:

3.1.1.1 Using the Descriptive Summary Sheet (Blocks 1-5) (Attachment 2), the Offeror shall detail their experience on projects meeting the requirements described in paragraphs below. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the projects do not have to have been performed by the joint venture submitting the offer. These projects could have been performed by the joint venture or by either company in the joint venture. Conversely, if the Offeror is proposing as a prime and intends to submit experience on projects where they were a part of joint venture, then detail the role that you played on the contract as part of the joint venture. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. Ensure that the Descriptive Summary Sheet (Blocks 1-5) and continuation sheet, if used, submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

3.1.1.2 The Project Description shall clearly describe the projects and its features. The Government will not assume any project characteristics that are not specifically identified and described. The Offeror may attach a continuation sheet to the Descriptive Summary Sheet if needed consisting of one (1) page to describe how the project contains the elements described below and meets the requirements of this factor. The submission must contain sufficient information for the government to determine whether the project meets the requirements in paragraph 3.1.1.5 below and its subparagraphs.

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

3.1.1.4 The projects submitted for consideration in Factor 1 shall be the same projects submitted for evaluation in Factor 2. Additional projects will not be considered.

3.1.1.5 Offerors shall submit projects on which it was either the prime or a major subcontractor that meet the value, recency, and relevancy of all the criteria below on a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) projects.

3.1.1.5.1 Completed within the last eight (8) years preceding the date that proposals are due for this solicitation.

3.1.1.5.2 New vertical construction with a value of no less than $30M total project value within the Continental United States (CONUS). Total project value includes the total value of vertical (building) construction and supporting facilities. Vertical (building) construction must represent no less than $25M of the $30M total project value. Projects completed outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) may also be considered if the Offeror can demonstrate that the project(s) was completed using similar construction techniques and standards as CONUS projects; i.e., U.S. Government installations. “Similar” construction can be defined as of the same type building(s) and complexity to that of the Reception Barracks Complex Phase I.

3.1.1.6 The Government will only evaluate the Offeror’s first five (5) projects. Any additional projects over five (5) will not be evaluated. Offerors are cautioned that the Descriptive Summary Sheet must contain sufficient information for the government to determine whether the project contains the elements of work similar to this requirement.

3.1.1.7 An IDIQ (Umbrella / D) contract will not be considered. The Government must be able to evaluate an actual project. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum contract value. Do not submit a group of related jobs as one project unless all of the work was done under the same contract or subcontract.

3.1.1.8 For recognized contractor teaming arrangements, each individual team member shall submit at least 1 project each that meets all the minimum requirements under paragraph

3.1.1.5. Projects submitted by the team may include those performed by individual team members, as well as those where all team members have prior experience together as a team.

3.1.1.9 Experience of individuals will not be considered under this factor.

3.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.1.2.1 The SSEB’s evaluation will be an assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under this solicitation. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above.

Each contract submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to confirm its relevancy.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater depth and breadth of experience in work involving:

(i) projects that are LEED certified. Actual LEED certification rather than simply the incorporation of LEED or sustainable features. If projects have been self-certified as LEED, a detailed explanation of the cirumstances and/or status of certification shall be provided.

(ii) performance among dispersed multiple sites, buildings, and/or facilities; i.e. projects that are part of a campus, industrial park, etc.

(iii) performance that involves construction of buildings greater than 50,000 SF

(iv) performance that involves construction of projects which includes significant site work including utility infrastructure, storm drainage, site grading, paving and parking, and/or landscaping.

Table 3A: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3B: Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

3.2 FACTOR TWO – PAST PERFORMANCE

3.2.1 Submission Requirements:

3.2.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on each project submitted for Factor 1. The information submitted through the Descriptive Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) as a whole will be evaluated for this factor. Attachments 2 and 3 are provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each project the Offeror included in Factor 1. Alternatively, the Offeror can submit completed PPQs previously filled out and signed by the Client as long as the Government is able to determine the project(s) are the same that were submitted in Factor 1. If the Government is unable to determine that the project(s) are the same as in Factor 1, then the PPQ will not be considered. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client Point of Contact. If the Government is unable to verify the information provided on the PPQs with the client Point of Contact, or by other sources available (e.g. CPARS), the Government reserves the right to disregard that project when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance and experience. Similarly, it is important for the PPQs to be signed by the Point of Contact. If PPQs are not signed by the client, the Government reserves the right to disregard the past performance ratings for that particular project. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1–5 of the Descriptive Cover Sheet (Attachment 2) which will contain contract and client information and submit it with the proposal for this Factor. At the client’s request, the Government may allow the client to directly submit the completed PPQ via email to the Contracting Specialist and/or Contracting Officer. PPQ’s received after the due date will not be considered. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

3.2.1.2 Past Performance Questionnaires submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ at Attachment 2 & 3 will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted in response to other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors can submit CCASS or CPARS in lieu of the PPQ form on the relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor, if available. In addition, the Government may consider available past performance information on projects not submitted by Offerors’ in response to this solicitation.

3.2.1.3 If the offeror is employing a recognized team arrangement, then Past Performance Information must be completed for each team member submitting one or more projects (performed individually or as part of the same team).

3.2.1.4 Past performance of individuals will not be considered under this factor.

3.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.2.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance and experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements.

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

3.2.2.3 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must meet the minimum criteria in paragraph 3.1.1.5 in order to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. Projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the description of the project. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not relevant will not be considered.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Rating Definition

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

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

3.2.2.4 Confidence Assessment:

3.2.2.4.1 Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they are able to demonstrate successful performance in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 3.1.1.5. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the project types described in paragraph 3.1.1.5.

3.2.2.4.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the projects identified by the Offeror in Factor 1 and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

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

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

3.2.5 Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Table 4. Confidence Ratings

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral 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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

3.3 FACTOR THREE – MANAGEMENT

3.3.1 Submission Requirements

3.3.1.1 Project Organization Chart. The offeror shall submit a Project Organization Chart including all team members and key subcontractors identified in the proposal, and depicting each Key Personnel position. The organizational chart must identify and integrate the Key Personnel of different team members and subcontractors, and show lines of authority. The Project

Organization Chart must be specific to this procurement, and not a generic document. The Organization Chart is limited to one page NTE 11” x 17” in size.

3.3.1.2 Organization Narrative. The offeror shall submit a narrative consistent with the Project Organization Chart that describes what firms will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Recognized contractor team arrangements must meet the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 3.1.1.8 above. List the major work elements to be self-performed by the offeror’s in-house work force(s), the major work elements to be performed by each key subcontractor, and any significant work items for which a subcontractor has not been identified. The Team Organization narrative is limited to three 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

3.3.1.3 Management Plan. The offeror shall provide a Management Plan developed specifically for this project. The information should make it clear that the offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product and effectively manage all team members and subcontractors, as well as the ability to coordinate all work throughout construction. As a minimum, the plan should address the following:

Quality Control Procedures: Describe the offeror’s quality control approach and capabilities to maintain quality control throughout construction. The discussion should address the offeror’s understanding of, familiarity with, and intended use of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers specific procedures and automated information management/tracking systems related to quality control. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the staffing plan required by Section 01 45 00.10.

Subcontractor Management: Describe how the offeror will coordinate and control all subcontractors to be utilized on the project. Discuss methods to be employed to avoid conflict between subcontractors.

Scheduling and Phasing: Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan the work and how the schedule will be used to manage construction. The narrative shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the project phasing and sequencing of construction required by the RFP.

Preparation and Submission of As-Built Documents: Describe how the offeror will maintain an accurate set of as-builts throughout the project, including the method that will be used to capture mark-ups on the construction drawings and how will this information be disseminated to the Government at close out.

Contract close out: Describe the offeror’s intended procedure to be used for close out of the project.

The Management Plan may include narrative and/or graphics and is limited to seven 8-1/2” x 11” pages. Although a standard format is not specified, each of the items of information should be presented in essentially the same order as discussed above.

3.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.2.2.1 Management Evaluation: The Government will evaluate proposals to ensure that they include a Project Organization Chart, Organization Narrative, and Management Plan. The

Project Organization Chart must integrate all team members, key subcontractors, and Key Personnel and show lines of authority. The Organization Narrative must be consistent with the Project Organization Chart, and include a discussion of roles, responsibilities, contractual arrangements, and major work items. The Management Plan will be evaluated to ensure that it includes distinct sections describing Quality Control Procedures, Subcontractor Management, Scheduling and Phasing, Preparation and Submission of As-Built Documents, and Contract close out.

3.2.2.2 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management narrative, and its understanding and capability to execute an awarded contract.

Table 3A: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3B: Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

3.4 FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

3.4.1 Submission Requirements

3.4.1.1 Small Business Participation Plan: ALL Offerors, regardless of size status, are required to address two elements: (1) planned small and small disadvantaged business usage for this procurement, and (2) past history of using small and small disadvantaged businesses on any type projects during the last 3 years.

3.4.1.2 Planned Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Usage for this Procurement. All Offerors are required to provide a narrative discussion of no more than two (2) pages at minimum 10 font addressing their corporate approach and methodology for acquiring, soliciting and using small and small disadvantaged businesses in the performance of this contract. All narratives should address the Offeror's commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as well as evidence of planned and /or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use small and small disadvantaged businesses.

3.4.1.3 All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of the proposed acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs) Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman- Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and, when applicable, Historically Black Colleges/ Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) have been identified for participation as part of the Offeror's team. This should include a general description of the type of work, product or service anticipated to be supplied via a small business concern along with the estimated percentage each subcontracted portion is in relation to the overall project. Identification of the names of specific subcontractors is not required for the small business utilization evaluation;

however, successful Offerors will ultimately be required to name subcontractors as a part of their subcontracting plan submission. Using the template provided in Attachment 4, provide the above stated information. The Offeror with higher percentages for Small Business participation will receive a higher rating than the Offeror who has lower percentages. Submission shall be limited to the Attachment 4, in addition to the two (2) page narrative.

(Example: Demolition Work- 10% of total work effort- SDVOSB identified)

3.4.1.4 Past History of Using Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses as Subcontractors.

Provide a description of the Offeror’s demonstrated small business achievements in the various small and small disadvantaged businesses areas on no more than five (5) completed projects during the past three (3) years. Information about each project shall be limited to one (1) page.

For each project, Offerors should provide a brief project description, dollar magnitude of the project, location, and the percentage of total work that was subcontracted to small businesses, identifying specific Small Business categories used on each project. For this submission, large businesses may submit no more than one (1) page (10 font minimum) of information pertaining to their goals and actual accomplishments under approved Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

3.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.4.2.1 All Offerors, regardless of size, will be evaluated in these two elements and must submit the information requested. In element (1), all Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to small business participation in the performance of this contract. The Offeror’s percentage of work committed to small business will be evaluated. The minimum Goals for this procurement are: Small Business:20% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):2% of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB):2% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business:2% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):2%of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB):1% of the total contract value.

In element (2), the Offerors will be evaluated on past utilization of small businesses by assessment of their records and other information. The work performed directly by a small business prime contractor (Offeror) will be considered as small business participation under element (1) and as small business past utilization under element (2). An Offeror must demonstrate a good faith effort and past commitment to the utilization of small business concerns.

3.4.2.2 The Government will evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 12.1.2, in conjunction with the information submitted on Attachment 4. The Government will also evaluate the narrative provided as part of Paragraph 12.1.4. Those narratives with greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments provided said details clearly demonstrate Offeror’s historical achievement of proposed goals. The utilization of small businesses in the performance of relevant projects submitted for Factor 2, Past Performance, will be given more weight in the evaluation of this factor.

3.4.3 Small Business Participation Plan. Will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

4.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1 Technical proposals will be evaluated consistent with the uniform evaluation procedure set forth in this section of the solicitation. The SSEB will conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors established in the solicitation as follows:

4.2 All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete and in accordance with the solicitation.

Proposals that fail this initial screening process may be rejected and the offeror will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

4.3 Each member of the SSEB will independently evaluate all information provided in a proposal against the prescribed non-price factors. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Once these individual evaluations are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

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

4.5 Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely parrot back the contractual requirements, but rather provide substantive, understandable and realistic evidence to support promised performance.

5.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

FACTOR 1 (Specialized Corporate Experience) is equal in importance to FACTOR 2 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 3 (Management).

FACTOR 2 (Past Performance) is more importat than FACTOR 1 (Specialized Corporate Experience) and FACTOR 3 (Management).

FACTOR 3 (Management) is equal in important to FACTOR 1 (Specialized Corporate Experience) and FACTOR 2 (Past Performance).

FACTOR 4 (Small Business Participation) is less important than FACTOR 1 (Specialized Corporate Experience), FACTOR 2 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 3 (Management)

All technical evaluation factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to

PRICE.

6.0 PRICE EVALUATION.

6.1 Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any contract.

6.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all…