W912J6-12-R-0001-0001 CONFORMED COPY.pdf

W912J6-12-R-0001-0001

Construction contract for Project KNMD069215 TFI-F-22 Upgrade Munitions Complex Haw aii Air National Guard Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Haw aii. Work w ill be performed in accordance w ith the plans and technical specifications. This project is being solicited as UNRESTRICTED. Notice of Price Evaluation for HUBZone Small Business concerns in accordance w ith FAR 52.219-4 is applicable. North American Industry Classif ication (NAICS) Code is 236220. The small business size standard is $33.5 million. Project magnitude is betw een $10,000,000.00 and $25,000,000.00. Offerors intending on submitting proposal should attend the Pre-Proposal Conference scheduled for 15 Feb 2012 at 1000 hours. See Section 0100 for specific registration information and base access requirements. A single aw ard is contemplated. Failure to submit an offer on all items shall result in rejection of the proposal. Solicitation and all information, notices, amendments, questions and answ ers for this solicitation w ill be posted at http://w w w .fbo.gov . Instructions for obtaining plans for this solicitation are listed in Section 0100. "

JULIANNE COOPER 586-239-4225

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

31-Jan-2012

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

TFI-F-22 Upgrade Munitions Complex

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________540 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________06 Mar 2012 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______90 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USPFO FOR HAWAII

CPT MANUEL LLANES

91-1179 ENTERPRISE AVE

KAPOLEI HI 96707-2150

W912J6

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

KNMD069215

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

88-844-6340FAX:TEL: 808-844-6335 TEL: FAX:

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912J6-12-R-0001

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT #1

The following is a Summary of Changes for the administrative corrections made throughout the solicitation document. All changes have been highlighted in “Yellow” in the conformed copy of the solicitation issued with this Amendment #1. PLEASE NOTE THAT OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO USE THE

CONFORMED COPY OF THE SOLICITATION W912J6-12-R-0001-1 WHEN PREPARING THEIR

PROPOSALS IN LIEU OF THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED SOLICITATION W912J6-12-R-0001:

SECTION 00100

Wage Determination has been updated to HI120001 2/10/2012 HI1

SECTION 00110

Paragraph 3.2.1 Added “Present”

Paragraph 3.3.3 Paragraph replaced

Paragraph 3.3.4 Added “schedules and charts may be on 11x17 inch paper folded into the proposal”

Paragraph 3.4.2.1.1 Multiple grammatical changes

Paragraph 3.4.2.2.1 Modified “lead personnel” to “key personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality

Assurance Manager, etc.)”

Paragraph 3.4.2.3 Paragraph replaced

Paragraph 3.4.2.3.1.4 Added “your company’s”

Paragraph 3.4.2.3.2 Deleted “6th” position Added “Resumes are limited to two (2) pages and will not count against the 15 page limit)

Paragraph 3.4.2.4.2 Modified “a critical path” to “the Critical Path Method (CPM)”, paragraph revised

Paragraph 3.4.3.7 Added “It is the offerors' sole responsibility to explain how any particular past/present projects is relevant to the project that is the subject of this solicitation”

Paragraph 3.4.3.9 Paragraph added

Paragraph 3.4.3.10 Paragraph added

Paragraph 3.4.5 Added “Alternatively”, “Reference Package”, “for”, “of”, “It is not the Government’s responsibility in any way to ensure that the references timely provide these packages to the Government” Deleted “or”, “of the”, “submission of a Reference Package (Exhibit C)”

Paragraph 3.4.5.1 Added “present”, “as set out below”, paragraph revised to include provisions to allow the

Government to utilize the summary of experience/resumes provided in the technical proposal if not experience exists

Paragraph 3.4.5.1.1 Deleted “each key person without prior past performance histroy demonstrated on the submitted Exhibit A documents shall provide a summary of experience or resume”

SECTION 00120

Paragraph 1.2 Underlined “and”

Paragraph 1.4 Added “begin the evaluation process by conducting” Deleted “all two (2) Volumes”, “applicable to other than small business (Large

Business)”

Paragraph 2.1 Replaced paragraph

Paragraph 2.1.1 Added paragraph

Paragraph 2.1.2.1 Deleted grammatical errors Added “Adjectival”

Paragraph 2.1.3.2 Added “exclusive of resumes/experience sheets NTE 2 pages each”

Paragraph 2.1.3.2.1 Added “the”

Paragraph 2.1.3.3.1 Added “and labor”

Paragraph 2.1.3.3.3 Added paragraph to define adequacy requirements for timeline and commissioning subfactor

Paragraph 2.2.2 Added “The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “confidence” rating.

Although there are subfactors listed below the confidence rating will be at the factor level only. Stated differently, the subfactors will be considered but they will not receive individual confidence ratings.”

Paragraph 2.3.3 Replaced paragraph

Paragraph 4.5 Added “A price reasonableness analysis is primarily concerned with determining whether or not an offered price is too high.”

Paragraph 4.6 Added “A price realism analysis is primarily concerned with determining whether or not an offered price is too low.”

Additionally the Following are hereby incorporated:

ADDENDUM 0001

This Addendum forms a part of the Bid Set Documents, and modifies the original Documents dated January 29, 2012, as noted herein. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum as required on the Proposal Form

SPECIFICATIONS

1. Section 31 63 33 00 Foundation Piling (Micropiles)

a. Replace entire section with attached new Section 31 63 33 00 Foundation Piling (Micropiles).

2. Section 33 30 00 Sanitary Sewers

a. Delete paragraph 2.3.3.2 Manhole Steps in its entirety.

3. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration

a. Replace portion of Section 3.2 Micropile Foundations beginning at the third paragraph on page 12, and ending with the third paragraph on page 17, with the attached addendum letter from Geolabs Inc. dated February 3, 2012. Signed and sealed by Clayton S. Mimura P.E.

b. This is a revision to the original recommendation for micropile foundations, including the compression load capacities, bonded zone length, and average micropile length.

DRAWINGS

1. Addition and correction of key indicators for leach field details. See CU-102, CU-106 and C-506.

2. Revision to AC pavement thickness. See CS-101.

3. Relocation of leach field and SPS north of original location, with associated revisions to related sewer lines, manholes, and their locations. See GP-101, EC-101, CU-102, CU-106, CU-401, CU-402, CU-404, CG-102, CG- 106, CG-107, and C-503.

4. Addition of irrigation line WL-A at leach field. See CU-102.

5. Additions and revisions to sewage pump detail, pump station data, conceptual layout plan, vent pipe, settlement gauge detail, leach field detail, leach field plan, notes, distribution box details, inspection riser cover detail, and septic tank details. See C-506, C-513, C-514, C-515, and C-516.

6. Correction of key indicator for Low Pressure Sewer Pump Station. See C-512.

7. Change of description to ‘Infiltration’ Basin A. See CG-101 and CG-102.

8. Revision to shape and extent of Infiltration Basin A. See CG-101 and CG-102.

9. Change of description to ‘Infiltration’ Basin B. See CG-102.

10. Change of description to ‘Infiltration’ Basin C. See CG-103.

11. Relocation of portion of security fence. See GP-101, CS-101, CS-102, CG-101, CG-102, AS-100, and AS-101.

12. Revision to pavement markings. See CS-101.

13. Addition of pavement markings adjacent to Building 9008. See CS-102.

14. Deletion of ‘Edge of Pavement, Typ.’ note. See CS-104.

15. Addition and revision of gate graphic. See GP-101, CS-105, CG-105, AS-100, and AS-101.

16. Addition of key indicator and revised detail at cleanout at Building 9015. See CU-101 and C-504.

17. Revision to slope of sanitary line at Building 9015. See CU-101.

18. Revision to concrete jacket detail. See C-505.

19. Revision to micropile design depth and bonded length. See S-001.

20. New sheet S-510 with detailing for CMU.

CLARIFICATIONS

1. Drawing references to Dampproofing and Damproofing Mastic refer to Fluid Applied Waterproofing (as specified in Section 07 14 00 Fluid Applied Waterproofing).

2. Refer sheet 9000-9003 S-551. Note that detail 1/Roof Panel Plan is a top view and does not indicate the formed turned down haunch at each end of the panel. The haunch profile and embeds for typical side panels is shown on sheet 9000-9003 S-550 in detail 3. The haunch profile and embeds for the side of the roof panel at the north end of each Igloo is shown on sheet 9000-9003 S-550 in detail 4.

ADDENDUM 0002

This Addendum forms a part of the Bid Set Documents, and modifies the original Documents dated January 29, 2012, as noted herein. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum as required on the Proposal Form.

SPECIFICATIONS

1. Add new Section 08 91 00 Louvers.

2. Add new Section 12 93 00 Bicycle Racks

3. Add Table 1 LEED NC v2.2 Scorecard. This Table is referenced in Section 01 33 29, and contains the mandatory LEED requirements for the project.

DRAWINGS

1. Revision to quantity and layout of micropile foundations at Building 9007. See 9007 S-101.

2. Revision to note regarding micropile casing thickness. See S-002.

3. See 9007 S-102, 9008 S-104, and 9007 S-300. (Some proposers were unable to download these documents.

These sheets are included herein, but have not been revised from original issue).

4. Deletion of note regarding Additive Option 7. See 9008 A-103.

5. Addition of Detail 4 for typical rake flashing. See 9013 A-304 and 9013 A-534.

6. Revision of Detail 3 to add counterflashing. See 9013 A-534.

7. Revision to power feed for pumps at SPS A-1. See ES-101.

8. Relocation of portion of security fence. See ES-102 and Addendum 1.

9. Addition of power feed for pump at LPSPS C-1. See ES-101.

10. Revision to panel schedule 2L4 to add power for pumps at SPS A-1. See E-703.

11. Revision of panel schedule 1L4 to add power for pumps at LPSPS C-1. See E-702.

12. Revision to panel schedule 1L-2 to delete power as originally scheduled for pump at SPS A-1. See E-703.

13. Deletion of note ‘GFGI’ for panel 400-1 in Room 104 at Building 9007. See 9007 E-302.

14. Modification of keynote 2 for 400 Hz convertor at Building 9007. See 9007 E-302.

15. Deletion of note ‘GFGI’ for panel 400-2 in Room 104 at Building 9008. See 9008 E-303.

16. Modification of keynote 3 for 400 Hz convertor at Building 9008. See 9008 E-303.

17. Change of text from ‘400 Hz Generator’ to ‘400 Hz Convertor’ at Building 9008. See 9008 E-303.

CLARIFICATIONS

1. Light poles type M3 remain in original location at security fence relocation.

2. The 400 Hz convertors and panels at Buildings 9007 and 9008 are provided by contractor.

SECTION 00600 REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text, offerors should include complete certification with your proposal:

252.209-7999 (Dev) Representations by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid JAN 2012

Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction Under any Federal Law

SECTION 00700 CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference

252.203-7004 Display of fraud hotline poster SEP 2011

PLEASE NOTE THAT OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO USE THE CONFORMED

COPY OF THE SOLICITATION W912J6-12-R-0001-1 WHEN PREPARING THEIR PROPOSALS IN

LIEU OF THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED SOLICITATION W912J6-12-R-0001:

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Lump Sum TFI-F-22 Upgrade Munitions Complex

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct the Proj No. KNMD069215 TFI-F-22 Upgrades Minitions Complex Hawaii Air National Guard Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii in accordance with project plans and specifications.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 Lump Sum OPTION Option 1-Add Paving & Striping POV Area

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct Additional paving and striping of POV Parking Area in accordance with the plans and specifications. Option 1.

0003 Lump Sum OPTION Option 2-RAMS/MAC Pad Addition

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct the RAMS/MAC Pad Addition in accordance with the plans and specifications. Option 2.

0004 Lump Sum OPTION Option 3-Multicube Addition

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct the Multicube Addition in accordance with the plans and specifications.

Option 3.

0005 Lump Sum OPTION Option 4-Storage Igloo Bldg 9003

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct the Storage Igloo Building 9003 in accordance with the plans and specifications. Option 4.

0006 Lump Sum OPTION Option 5-Storage Igloo Building 9000

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct Storage Igloo Building 9000 in accordance with the plans and specifications. Option 5.

0007 Lump Sum OPTION Option 6-M&I Soft Bay Building 9019

FFP

Non-personal services to provide all plant, labor, transportation, tools, equipment, appliances, supplies, services, permits, insurane and supervision necessary to construct the M&I Soft Bay Building 9019 in accordance with the planns and specifications. Option 6.

TABLES OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00010 Solicitation Contract Form

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD SF 1442 and SF 1442 BACK

SECTION 00010 - PRICING SCHEDULE, NOTES

SECTION 00100 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00600 – REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Project # KNMD069215 Dated 29 Jan 2012 ATTACHMENT 2- WAGE DETERMINATION(S)- to be inserted at award. See section 00100 for solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 3- SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT DATED to be inserted at award ATTACHMENT 4-ADDENDUM 0001 Dated 17 Feb 2012 ATTACHMENT 5-ADDENDUM 0002 Dated 23 Feb 2012

EXHIBIT A- Performance Relevancy Questionnaire EXHIBIT B- Subcontractor/Teaming Partner/Key Personnel Information & Consent Form EXHIBIT C- Reference Questionnaire package EXHIBIT D-Option information form EXHIBIT E- Proposal Inquiry Format EXHIBIT F- Forward Pricing Agreement Rates for Modifications EXHIBIT G- Small Business Participation Plan (Format) EXHIBIT H- Evaluated Total Offer Calculation EXHIBIT I- Evaluated Total Offer SAMPLE EXHIBIT J- PreProposal Meeting Access Form

SECTION 00010 NOTES

NOTES

1. Instructions for the preparation of proposals are located in Sections 00100, 00110 and 00120.

2. Offeror’s attention is invited to the insurance requirement contained in this solicitation (FAR Clause 52.228-5 Insurance – Work on a Government Installation). Certification of the required coverage for the prime contractor shall be furnished prior to beginning work on this contract, and the Contracting Officer may request evidence of the required insurance at any time during the life the contract.

3. Reference DFARS Provision 252.236-7008, Contract Prices – Bidding Schedules. The term “Bidding Schedule” shall also be construed to mean “Offer Schedule” or “Schedule”. The terms “bid” and “offer”, and “bidder” and “offeror” shall be construed as having the same meaning in this solicitation and resulting contract.

4. CLINS 0002 through 0007 are Option Line Items. See FAR Provision 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, Section 00100. The Government anticipates awarding options at time of award, however, reserves the right to award unexercised options after award within the time period provided in the awardee’s accepted proposal. (Reference Exhibit D).

5. Government reserves the right to include options exercised at time of award in the Base CLIN (#0001) to facilitate and simplify a single schedule and payment processing.

End of Section 00010

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

SECTION 120

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price Contract. The Government intends to award a single contract to a qualified Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to all the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation scheme set out in this solicitation. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria.

1.2. To arrive at a Best Value decision this acquisition will utilize the FAR Part 15.101-1 tradeoff process unless the lowest priced offeror (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) is also deemed to be the highest rated in terms of non-price evaluation criteria. If the lowest priced offeror (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) is also the highest rated in terms of non-Price Factors, no tradeoff is necessary. Further, there is no tradeoff necessary between any offer that is lower priced (with a price deemed reasonable and realistic) and higher rated in terms of non-Price Factors with respect to any other offers that are higher priced and lower rated for the non-Price Factors. While the Government and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors for Award.”

Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability, past performance and/or pricing and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award.

Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.4. The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor Technical, Past Performance and Price or any technical subfactor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award. Failure to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with the initial proposal shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

1.5. Offerors must ensure that no pricing information is displayed in Volume 2, Technical and Past Performance Proposal.

1.6. Although the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past Performance information obtained herein will be used during the Government’s responsibility determination. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination from all offerors after receipt of proposals. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer, in his/her sole discretion, later determines them to be necessary or appropriate. Further, the Government reserves the right to create or not to create a competitive range. 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.

1.8. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

1.9. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. The evaluation factors are (1) Technical, (2) Past/Present Performance, and (3) Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Technical, Past/Present Performance, and Price as set out in this Solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors the Technical Factor is slightly more important than the Past/Present Performance Factor. When combined, however the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. (the total evaluated price (TEP) as discussed in Section 00120 will be used in the decision.) The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award

The evaluation factors are Technical, Past/Present Performance and Price. The risk assessment of Past Performance and color rating of Technical will be evaluated in conjunction with the price proposed as well as the total evaluated price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past Performance, Technical and Price; Past Performance and Technical in the following manner.

Technical is slightly more important than Present and Past Performance and when combined, the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. (The total evaluated price (TEP) as discussed in Section 0120 Paragraph 4.3 will be used in the decision. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award.

2.1.1. The sequential nature of this evaluation is as follows:

2.1.1.1. Following the compliance check by the contracting officer, the technical proposal will be rated first. Any offeror receiving a rating of “red” in any subfactor within the Technical Factor may be eliminated from advancing further in this competition. The Government will evaluate and rate an offeror's Technical proposal at the sub-factor and overall Factor level using a color and adjectival rating that combines technical merit and proposal risk set out below. The technical proposal assigned rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. All proposals except for those that received a “RED” rating in any technical subfactor will advance to the next stage of the evaluation – the Price Evaluation stage.

2.1.1.2. During the Price evaluation, the Government will examine all prices to see if they are reasonable and realistic. All offers that passed the Technical stage of the evaluation and are deemed to be reasonable and realistic will then advance to the final stage of the evaluation - the Past/Present Performance stage. If an offeror submitted a price that the Government determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic, that offer will be set aside and will not advance further in the competition unless the Government decides to open discussions with that offeror.

2.1.1.3. At the third and final stage, the Government will examine the proposals to see if the highest rated offeror in terms of the Technical Factor also has the lowest (realistic and reasonable) price. If so, the Government will start the past/present performance evaluation with that offeror. If that offeror is then deemed to have merited the highest past/present performance rating of “Very Relevant”, then the evaluation process will end and that offeror will be deemed the best value. If that does not happen, the Government will evaluate the past performance of all of the offerors that made it to stage three and perform a traditional tradeoff analysis amongst them as set forth in FAR 15.101-1. By using this method it is possible that some offerors’ Past/Present Performance will not be evaluated.

2.1.2. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL : TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS:

2.1.2.1. The technical proposal will be rated first. The Government will evaluate and rate an offeror's Technical proposal at the sub-factor and overall Factor level using a color rating that combines technical merit and proposal risk considering all subfactors identified in this section. The technical proposal assigned rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

Color Adjectival Rating Evaluation Criteria

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

Purple 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.

Green 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.

Yellow

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.

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

2.1.3. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: Offerors who are deemed to merit an “RED” rating in the Technical Factor or any subfactor will be removed from further consideration for award unless the Contracting Officer determines discussion are necessary and a revision of the technical proposal may result in the offeror being eligible for award. The Government intends to award without discussions. Due to the evaluation process the Technical Proposal must contain all the required information for a complete evaluation.

2.1.3.1. Subfactor 1 (USGBC) LEED® experience and capability - The USGBC) LEED® technical capability proposal is limited to 8 pages. The proposal for this subfactor should demonstrate company experience with building to United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards. The proposal also needs to demonstrate that the named lead construction personnel have experience and required qualifications in assigned roles with building to USGBC LEED® standards. If there is no such experience/required qualifications with USGBC LEED® standards, the onus is solely on the offeror to indicate in detail how the offeror plans to overcome this lack of experience/required qualifications. The Government, in its sole and broad discretion, will analyze the above-referenced plans to overcome the lack of experience and/or qualifications with USGBC LEED® standards.

2.1.3.2. Subfactor 2 Experience and Capability Proposal: The Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 15 pages. , exclusive of resumes/experience sheets NTE two (2) pages each.

2.1.3.2.1. Using the information in the Technical Proposal, and the projects/contracts discussed and listed in the Exhibit A’s the Government will evaluate the extent of related experience, and determine to what degree the offeror has the experience and capability to manage a complex multi-disciplined construction project comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation. Accordingly, higher ratings can be achieved by offerors whose projects more closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of this solicitation’s requirements.

2.1.3.2.2. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements, and determine to what degree their technical and administrative capabilities, proposed organization and management plan are adequate to meet contract requirements. To be considered adequate the Project management proposal will address the full spectrum of activities involved in the management of a resulting contract in a manner that gives the Government confidence that the offeror understands of the requirements. The evaluation of this subfactor will determine to what degree the proposed organization, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements. Functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project management, site superintendence, quality control, estimating, scheduling, and subcontract purchasing and administration should be adequately addressed. An adequate proposal will include the information necessary to give the Government confidence of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform complete project management of the scope requirements.

2.1.3.2.3. Proposal demonstrates adequate quality control processes to give government confidence of the offeror’s ability to successfully manage the material submittal process, and ensure subcontractor compliance with contract documents.

2.1.3.2.4. Proposal demonstrates, as a minimum, that the following key personnel: Contract

Manager; Project Manager(s), Site Superintendent(s), Estimator(s), Safety Manager, Scheduler, have experience in managing projects/contracts of the same/similar dollar magnitude, size, complexity and scope, in the capacity in which they are proposed for this project. Personnel meet experience and education qualifications included in the contract requirements, if any. Members of the proposed contract/project team personnel that have experience working together on successful similar type projects may be given additional consideration.

2.1.3.2.5. Proposal adequately discusses approach and timeline for commissioning. Use of an independent, qualified commissioning agent/firm may receive additional consideration.

2.1.3.3. Subfactor 3 Construction Schedule and c: The Schedule itself is not subject to page limits;

however any provided narrative to Subfactor 3 submission is limited to 5 pages.

2.1.3.3.1. Proposal should adequately address and demonstrate experience and capability in managing a project in an island environment. Discussion should demonstrate an understanding of the unique logistical and labor issues that affect projects on the Island. Proposal should adequately address involvement of the local island workforce in this project.

2.1.3.3.2. Construction Schedule and commissioning /timeline should demonstrate an offerors understanding of the requirements of the schedule and commissioning. The proposal must demonstrate a functionally integrated understanding of the project. The proposal shall include a preliminary schedule that logically details task and timing of the work effort and provides realism of project events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. Offerors are advised that the proposal schedule is required to allow the Government to determine if offeror had a comprehensive understanding of the project’s requirements. An acceptable rating of your technical schedule does not in any way indicate approval of the proposal schedule document by the Government. It may contain incorrect assumptions or weaknesses that were within an acceptable tolerance for proposal purposes. The Contract Awardee shall be required to submit a complete schedule for Government approval inclusive of all requirements and amendments.

2.1.3.3.3. Proposal adequately discusses approach and timeline for commissioning. Use of an independent, qualified commissioning agent/firm may receive additional consideration.

2.1.3.3.4. Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan: All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

2.1.3.3.4.1. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

2.1.3.3.4.2. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

2.1.3.3.4.3. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

2.1.3.3.4.4. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition;

2.1.3.3.4.5. Minimum participation plan goals for this procurement are -- Small Business:

{15%} of the total contract value; 8(a)/Small Disadvantaged Business: {5%} of the total contract value; Woman- Owned Small Business: {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.25%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business: {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: {.25%} of the total contract value. (Note: for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for Woman-Owned Small Business would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for Serviced Disabled Veterans also count towards Veteran Owned Small Businesses). Important reminder: Other than Small Business must also provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

2.2. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Past/Present Performance of offers receiving rating higher than “RED” Technical rating starting with the lowest reasonable and realistic price offered until an offeror is rated “Substantial Confidence,” which is the best Past/Present Performance rating possible under the terms of the evaluation criteria in this solicitation. If the lowest (reasonable and realistic) price is deemed by the Government to merit a “Substantial Confidence” in Past Performance and has been rated “Blue” in the Technical Factor there will be no tradeoff and that offeror will be selected for award. If the lowest price offeror is not deemed to merit a “Blue” Technical rating and a “Substantial Confidence” the Government will continue to evaluate the Past Performance of all offers in price order. The Government will then use a standard tradeoff process as described at FAR 15.101-1 to arrive at the offeror representing the best value in this competition. By using this method it is possible that some offerors’ Past/Present Performance will not be evaluated.

2.2.2. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “confidence” rating. Although there are subfactors listed below the “confidence” rating will be at the factor level only. Stated differently, the subfactors will be considered but they will not receive individual confidence ratings. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance complete to 70% percent.

Projects currently in progress for the National Guard will also be considered regardless of percentage complete. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources; from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror;

(4) the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

2.2.3. The evaluation may take into account Past/Present Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing, contracts.

2.2.4. An offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors provided the offeror clearly states in the proposal that the information provided about predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors is for the purposes of enhancing the offerors past performance proposal. These ratings may not have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. The weight that will be afforded for this type of past performance is within the sole discretion of the Government. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral). However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance history, while rated “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral) in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors.

2.2.5. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past/present performance information and adverse past/present performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2.3. Currency, Trends and Relevancy: Evaluators will consider the performance information for currency, relevancy as well as trends in the performance as explained further below.

2.3.1. “Current” means performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning five years prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period.

2.3.2. “Trends” in performance will be considered and may include the following but not limited to:

more current performance having greater weight than older performance; patterns or trends in performance issues as relates to, but not limited to, types of projects, work, personnel and similar elements; and does performance show a pattern of improvement or decline over time?

2.3.3. In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts, the Government may evaluate an offeror's past performance for similarity of reinforced concrete foundation and floor slab with steel framed masonry walls and roof structure; size; project scope including but not limited to maintenance facility, administrative facilities, storage facilities and munitions facilities; cost magnitude $10M to $25M, and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort including but not limited to igloos, maintenance shops, interior walls and utilities, access pavements, utility support, security measures, fire protection and HVAC. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. The Government will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® certification achievements. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed will also be considered. Relevancy weight will affect an offeror’s overall Past/Present “Confidence” Performance rating. The more relevant the project is weighted the greater confidence there will be in the Past/Present Performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts, the Government may evaluate an offeror's past performance for similarity of the construction methods including but not limited to reinforced concrete foundation and floor slab with steel framed masonry walls and roof structure; size; project scope including but not limited to maintenance facility, administrative facilities, storage facilities and munitions facilities; cost magnitude $10M to $25M, and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort including but not limited to igloos, maintenance shops, interior walls and utilities, access pavements, utility support, security measures, fire protection and HVAC. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. The Government will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® certification achievements. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed will also be considered. Relevancy will affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating.

2.3.3.1. The Government may consider an offeror’s previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s past/present performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s performance on three contracts may, by definitions, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant or very relevant effort.

2.3.4. Considering all the elements listed above, the following adjectival ratings and descriptions will be used to evaluate the relevancy weight.

2.3.4.1. VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

2.3.4.4. NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.4.5. Offerors who otherwise have satisfactory performance on previous construction projects may be rated “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral) if those projects are not considered relevant to the proposed acquisition and relevancy cannot be obtained through the evaluation of key personnel and/or subcontractors.

Projects that are not current will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.4. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. Of these six, quality control, timely performance and management effectiveness are the most significant subfactors and are of equal value and when combined, are significantly more important than the other three subfactors. The other three subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Evaluation will be at the factor level.

Quality Control

Timely Performance

Management Effectiveness

Compliance with Safety Standards

Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

Compliance with utilization of small business concerns requirements (applicable to all);

and/or, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Requirements, (applicable to large businesses only).

2.5. The elements that may be considered under each subfactor are described below:

2.5.1. Quality Control (QC): Evaluators may consider such things as: Quality of Workmanship;

Adequacy of the Contractor QC(Critical); Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Suggested solutions and displayed initiative to implement solutions; Adequacy of Materials; Use of specified materials;

Adequacy of Submittals and Adequacy of "As-Builts”.

2.5.2. Timely Performance: Evaluators may consider such things as:…