W912JA-18-R-6004-0001_Modification_Doc.pdf

W912JA-18-R-6004

F6L32D6063AW01-0001

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

Purpose of Amendment:

1. Section 00100. Paragraph 3.1 RFP number corrected

2. Section 00110. Paragraph 2.1.1 and 2.5.2.5 deleted

3. Section 00120 Paragraph 1.A.4 and 1.B Subfactor 4 deleted.

4. Exhibit C. Entire Exhibit removed and replaced w ith updated information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Feb-2018

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 W912JA-18-R-6004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Jan-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Feb-2018

CODE

NGAL-PFO-PC

187TH FIGHTER WING - MSG,

5187 SELMA HIGHWAY

MONTGOMERY AL 36108-4824

W912JA 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SEC 00110 PROPOSAL PREPARATION

Section 00110

1. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. These instructions prescribe the format of proposals, and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. Carefully review this section prior to commencing proposal preparation. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with Section 00100, FAR Provision 52.215-1, Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition.

1.2. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal, at the time of proposal submission, may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and eliminated from consideration for award.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT

2.1. Prospective offerors shall submit the following volumes in two separate packages:

2.1.1. Submit Volume 1, Price proposal, pro forma documents, in original and (3) three hard copies, in accordance with instructions contained herein.

Volume 2, Part 1 – Technical Capability Proposal, in original, (3) hard copies and one CD.

Subfactor 1 – Experience and Capability (limit resumes to 2 pages each) Subfactor 2- Construction Schedule and Commissioning Approach/timeline (schedule no page limit;

narrative – no more than 5 pages) Subfactor 3 – Quality Control

Volume 2, Part 2 – Past/Present Performance Information

Exhibit A - Performance Relevancy Questionnaire should provide questionnaire responses to the Contracting Officer not later than the closing date.

2.3. After compiling all required information, submit original and specified number of copies to the following office: 187FW Base Contracting Office, Building 1502, 5187 Selma Highway, Montgomery. AL 36108. Mark the front of the envelope/box with the following: “PROPOSAL No. W912JA-17-R-0013, DO NOT OPEN--- Competitive Acquisition”.

2.4. PROPOSAL FORMAT

2.4.1. Purpose: These instructions prescribe the format of proposals, and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposed data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation.

2.4.2. 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.

2.4.3. Offerors are cautioned to submit enough information to enable the evaluation committee to fully ascertain each offeror’s capability to perform all of the requirements contemplated by this solicitation. All commitments made in the proposal may become a part of the resultant contract. The data submitted with each proposal should be complete and concise, but not overly elaborate. Excessive reliance on promotional brochures is discouraged.

2.4.4. Written proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper (charts may be landscaped but must be on 8.5 x 11 inch paper) and shall be in a legible font size (10 min.). All pages of each proposal shall be appropriately numbered, and identified with the RFP number. For ease of reference, consecutive page numbering with tabs is required. Type size for graphics, charts, diagrams and tables shall be of an appropriate font and size for the application, and must be clearly readable without magnification assistance to the normal eye. Text lines will be no less than single-space. To the maximum extent practicable, proposal submission shall be double sided. Where page limits exist a page is defined as one single side of a page. Double sided pages count as 2 pages. Unless otherwise stated, tabs, indexes and dividers do not count in the page count.

2.4.5. Binding: Elaborate format and binding are neither necessary nor desirable. All binders will be capable of lying flat when opened. Three ring binders are preferred. The cover and spine of each binder will clearly identify the offeror’s name, Project number, RFP number, RFP title and copy number, (e.g. copy 2 of 3). The original for each volume will be clearly identified on the cover and the spine. All binders will allow for easy removal and replacement of pages.

2.4.6. Indexing: Each binder will contain a “Table of Contents” for that volume. The “Table of Contents” will identify major areas, paragraphs and subparagraphs by number and title, as well as by page number and volume locations. Tab indexing will be used to identify Sections as appropriate.

2.4.7. Electronic Copy: Provide one (1) electronic copy of all of the Volume 2 proposal information. Electronic copies shall be submitted on CD/DVD saved in Microsoft Word format or Adobe Acrobat. (“Read Only” files are acceptable).

2.4.10. The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in his/her proposal, including that provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the facts and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected.

2.5. PROPOSAL VOLUME CONTENTS: Each offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as set forth below and all information shall be confined to the appropriate part to facilitate independent evaluation. Proposals, which do not include the requested minimum information, may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

2.5.1. VOLUME 1, PRICE/COST INFORMATION AND PRO FORMA DOCUMENTS

2.5.1.1. Offerors shall provide all price/cost information necessary to provide a meaningful basis for Government's analysis and evaluation of price/cost for the project set forth in Section 00120 of this solicitation. The Government is not, and does not intend on, requesting certified cost or pricing data. See bid schedule table for details.

2.5.1.2. Provide an introductory page to include Cage Code, DUNS Number, Tax Identification Number (TIN), points of contact, authorized negotiators, contact phone, and email addresses. Also, include your business socioeconomic status, e.g. small business, woman-owned small business, HUBZone small business, etc.

2.5.1.3. Offer and Section 00010 – Complete in its entirety the “Offeror” portion of the Standard Form (SF) 1442.

An official having the authority to contractually bind your company must sign the SF 1442 in accordance with FAR

4.102. One copy of the SF 1442 is required to have an original signature.

2.5.1.4. Section 00010 – Insert the price/cost associated with the project in the line items. All line items (CLINs) must be priced to be considered.

2.5.1.5. Representations and Certifications- Section 00600- insert the required certifications and representations and return only those shown in section 00600. Return the entire Section 00600 with your proposal. All other required representations and certifications are to be completed on line in the System for Award Management (SAM) www.sam.gov.

2.5.1.6. All potential offerors are required to register in the System for Award Management. See FAR Provision 52.204-7 System for Award Management.

2.5.1.8. Joint Venture Requirements - Parties wishing to propose as a joint venture must submit, with the Pro Forma documents, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement. The joint venture agreement shall be executed in accordance with FAR 4.102(d). Each joint venture partner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer that its Board of Directors has approved its participation in the joint venture or by an instrument of similarly binding character in the case of an unincorporated entity. Offerors are reminded that to obtain an award the awardee, to include a joint venture, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. Applicable to set-aside solicitations: Joint Ventures must meet applicable size standards (See FAR Subpart 19.1). Submit with the proposal any size determination for the Joint Venture entity received from the Small Business Administration. A Joint Venture where-in one party is not a small business may be referred to the Small Business Administration (IAW FAR 19.302 (b)) to determine eligibility. All questions regarding Joint Ventures must be directed to the Small Business Administration (SBA) and not the Contracting Officer.

2.5.2. VOLUME 2, PART 1, OFFEROR TECHNICAL CAPABILITY PROPOSAL

2.5.2.1. Volume 2 Part 1 is comprised of four (4) subfactors. Subfactor 1 Experience and Capability; Subfactor 2 Construction Schedule; Subfactor 3 Quality Control and Subfactor 4, LEED® Experience and Capability United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® standards;

2.5.2.1.1. Government acknowledges that the technical proposal will involve discussion of some of the same projects/contracts discussed in the Past Performance volume. While Past Performance examines how an offeror performed in the past, so as to determine the probability of success on future projects, this subfactor examines the offeror’s experience with complex multidiscipline project management and execution and how the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the contract’s requirements taking this experience into consideration. The Government intends to use Exhibit A Part 1 information in the evaluation of experience for Subfactor 1. A reiteration of the information provided in Exhibit A is neither required nor desired. Offeror should reference this information by providing a short summation of their relevant experience to meet the submission requirements of this subfactor.

2.5.2.2. Subfactor 1 Experience and Capability. The Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 10 single pages, excluding tabs, indexes and resumes as noted below. Pages in excess of the limit will not be evaluated.

2.5.2.2.1 Demonstrate offerors technical experience and capability to perform a project of this magnitude and complexity. Discuss and provide experience of key construction personnel including, but not limited to, Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Control Manager (on site) and Safety Manager. Refer to Specification Section 01000, paragraph 35, for the minimum qualification requirements for key personnel. Discuss any previous projects that are similar to this project in terms of scope, size and complexity. Specifically discuss Special Access Program Facilities (SAPF) and LEEDs experience. If no experience so state and indicate in detail how you plan to overcome this lack of experience. The onus is solely on the offeror to indicate in detail how the offeror plans to overcome this lack of experience. (Resumes or experience cut sheets are limited to 2 pages each and are not part of the page count.) In the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted then a completed Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” is also required or the information will not be considered.

2.5.2.3. Subfactor 2: Construction Schedule and commissioning approach/timeline is obtained for the purposes of evaluating an offerors understanding of the requirements of the schedule and commissioning. The Schedule itself is not subject to page limits; however any narrative accompanying the schedule submission is limited to 5 pages, excluding tabs and indexes.

2.5.2.3.1. Provide Construction Schedule in a Gantt chart that shows the complete project schedule from Notice to Proceed date of 15 March 2018 (estimated) to include all construction activities as well as concurrent activities, and outline the critical path activities that will show successful execution of the construction project within the period of performance requirements per FAR 52.211-10. Also, include a narrative discussing the scheduling processes and resource allocation that ensure completion and control of schedule progress from beginning to the end of the project.

2.5.2.4 Subfactor 3: Quality Control. The proposal narrative demonstrates that the quality control staff, with lines of authority, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements. The proposed Quality Control answers should provide a detailed explanation of how quality issues are dealt with on various types of construction projects and as a minimum, meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work and how you intend to ensure non-reoccurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials. (Note: A Quality Control Plan is not required with this proposal).

2.5.3. VOLUME 2, PART 2 OFFEROR PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

2.5.3.1. Volume 2 Part 2 is obtained for the purpose of evaluating Past/Present Performance. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going performance that is complete to 70% or greater. Volume 2 includes the offeror’s Performance Relevancy Questionnaire, Exhibit A Parts 1 and 2; and any discussion and or additional information, awards, letters, etc. concerning past/present performance the offeror includes. Offerors are cautioned to complete all the questions on the Exhibit A Parts 1 and Part 2. Detailed instructions are included in Exhibit A.

2.5.3.2. Offerors shall use the Reference Package, Exhibit C, to obtain references from past and present clients.

2.5.3.3. Past/Present Performance, which includes current on-going (present) performance that is complete to 70% or greater will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 00120 of the solicitation. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, joint venture or formal teaming agreement, for the purpose of this RFP, each company shall complete Exhibit As and obtain Exhibit C references. The Government may contact these references and may consider this information as well as information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the offeror's past/present performance.

2.5.3.4. Offerors shall discuss their performance using the Performance Relevancy Questionnaire format, Exhibit A, Part 1. Prepare not more than 3 of these documents. Contractors should select their projects carefully because the quality of the contractor’s relevant performance is more important than the quantity of projects submitted.

2.5.3.5. Use the Exhibit A format to provide information that demonstrates a history of performance on contracts that are similar in scope, complexity, and cost magnitude to this project’s plans and specifications. Explain what aspects of the contract you find relevant to the proposed effort and identify how each contract ranks, in terms of relevancy, with respect to the other contracts addressed in proposal.

2.5.3.6. Offerors should consider the currency and relevancy of the past/present performance information to be considered, the performance must have been completed during the past five (5) years. The period begins five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date and includes current performance. Performance that is more current may have greater impact than older performance.

2.5.3.7. In determining relevancy to the solicitation requirement, offerors should consider the similarity of construction methods employed, size, scope, cost magnitude, location, client type (e.g. federal government) and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. Location should also be considered.

2.5.3.8. Offerors are encouraged to include with their proposal information any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror's correction actions.

2.5.3.9. Offerors lacking relevant present/past performance experience may submit information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement if such information is relevant to this acquisition. Such information shall, as a minimum, include:

Name(s) of Predecessor Company/Subcontractor and/or Key Personnel Complete Address Telephone, Fax Number and email address Brief synopsis of the experience- A resume may be submitted for "Key Personnel" Describe relevancy to this project

2.5.3.10 Provide three (3) references, for each Predecessor Company, Subcontractor or Key Personnel. Clearly identify the contractor/individual for whom the reference information concerns.

2.5.3.11. Past Performance References – REQUIRED – A “Final” Performance Evaluation (Construction) (also referred to as CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out reference package for the project. OR Offerors shall prepare and submit to prior client(s) of all the projects listed on your Exhibit A submission a Reference Package (Exhibit C) (Detailed instructions are included in Exhibit C Package). This includes correspondence explaining the requirement to obtain an independent evaluation of prior contract performance, and the Past Performance Questionnaire for use in evaluating Past Performance. Inform references that completed Performance Questionnaire should be returned to the Contracting Officer via email at: stephen.a.shanks2.mil@mail.mil and william.c.kast.civ@mail.mil to arrive later than the closing date for receipt of proposals. Offeror must not review the Past Performance Questionnaire prior to submission. They are to be submitted by the client/evaluator directly to the Contracting Officer. Offeror's should follow-up and encourage references to get the questionnaires to the Contracting Officer in a timely manner.

2.5.3.12. In assessing past performance, the Government may also consider the past/present performance of the offeror’s key personnel, Project Manager, Quality Control Manager and Site Superintendent, as it relates to previous projects. In the event the intended key personnel for this solicitation’s project do not have demonstrated past performance in the project(s) submitted in the Exhibit A’s, the Government reserves to obtain reference information additional information is required.

2.5.3.12.1. Each key person without prior past performance history demonstrated on the submitted Exhibit A shall provide a summary of experience or a resume. In the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted then a completed Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” or Letter of Intent, is also required or the information will not be considered. The Government may seek additional references and reserves the right to use the information provided to obtain additional references.

2.5.3.13. Offerors are advised that the Government may use all data provided by the offeror in this volume and data obtained from any other sources, to include, but not limited to, 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; interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current accurate and complete past/present performance information rests with the offeror.

END OF SECTION 00110

SEC 00120 PROPOSAL EVAL

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors:

Technical, Price, and Past Performance. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is somewhat more important than Present/ Past Performance and when combined however, the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

A. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

1. Experience and Capability

2. Construction Schedule

3. Quality Control

The subfactors 1-4 will be rated in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1, Experience and Capability, being the most important.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Plans and Specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings; however, the overall evaluation will be at the factor level. An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete, and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration.

Factor 2. Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3. Cost/Price. The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract type. Price Reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed price effort.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical 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. This is a combined rating that includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level as well as an overall factor level rating. Based on evaluation results, the Government will assign a technical rating for each of the four (4) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. The subfactors, 1-4, will be rated in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1, Experience and Capability being the most important.

An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete, and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration for award.

Subfactor 1. Experience and Capability Proposal: The Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 10 single pages, exclusive of table of contents, tabs, and dividers. Pages in excess of the limit will not be evaluated.

The elements in subfactor 1 are of equal importance.

Using the information in 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.

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 Experience and Capability proposal must 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 all of the requirements. 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.

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

Proposal must demonstrate, as a minimum, that the following key personnel: Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Control Manager (on site), and Safety Representative, 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.

Subfactor 2. Construction Schedule. The Schedule itself is not subject to page limits. The offeror shall provide a schedule using a Gantt chart that shows a complete project schedule considering a Notice to Proceed date of 8 May 2018. The schedule should demonstrate an offerors understanding of the requirements. The Construction Schedule is an integrated and networked multi-layered schedule of program/project tasks. It identifies project events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. These dates are based on the calendar dates provided as the starting point and the logical flow of dates provided by calculating the addition of duration of all tasks using typical schedule networking tools. Each major task will be directly traceable to the requirements of the project. The NTP date for the schedule is for the purpose of evaluation only.

Subfactor 3. Quality Control. The proposal narrative demonstrates that the quality control staff, with lines of authority, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements. The proposed Quality Control answers should provide a detailed explanation of how quality issues are dealt with on various types of construction projects and as a minimum, meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work and how you intend to ensure non-reoccurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials. (Note: A Quality Control Plan is not required with this proposal).

Color Rating Adjectival 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.

2. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans and Specifications.

The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “relevancy” rating and a “confidence” rating. Although there are subfactors listed below, the “confidence” ratings 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) interview Program/Project Managers or Contracting Officers, or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) use 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.

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.

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 offeror’s 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).

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.

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

“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.

“Trends” in performance will be considered and may include the following, but will not be limited to: more current performance having greater weight than older performance; patterns or trends in performance issues relating to, but not limited to, types of projects, work, personnel and similar elements; and whether performance show a pattern of improvement or decline over time.

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 similarity of 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.

In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts, the Government may evaluate an offeror’s past performance for similarity of the construction methods, size, project scope, cost magnitude and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects’ sustainability requirements. ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED®. The location at which work was performed may also be considered.

Relevancy weight will affect offeror’s overall Past Performance Confidence rating. The more relevant the project is weighted, the greater confidence there will be in the past performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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.

Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. The six (6) sub-factors are of equal importance.

An overall evaluation for Past Performance will be at the factor level.

1. Quality Control

2. Timely Performance

3. Compliance with Safety Standards

4. Management Effectiveness

5. Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

6. Compliance with utilization of small business concerns requirements (applicable to all offerors); including small business concerns. Reference FAR 19.702.

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

Quality Control (QC): Evaluators may consider such things as: Quality of Workmanship; Adequacy of the Contractor QC; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Suggestion of solutions and display of initiative to implement solutions; Adequacy of Materials; Use of specified materials; Adequacy of Submittals and Adequacy of "As-Builts”.

Timely Performance: Evaluators may consider such things as: Meeting established progress schedule; Timely submission of updated and revised progress schedules; Resolution of delays in an expeditious manner;

Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Providing submittals in a timely manner; Completion of all contract work prior to requesting final inspection; Timely completion of punch-list items; Absence of major discrepancies; Timely submission of close out documents, i.e., “as builts”, “red lines”; Contractor provision of timely and satisfactory response to warranty issues after project completion.

Compliance with Safety Standards: Evaluators may consider such things as: Adequacy of implementation of safety plan; Acceptability of safety history; and the Experience Modification Rate (EMR) provided on Exhibit A, Part 2, paragraph 2E. An EMR over 1.0 may receive less favorable consideration.

Management Effectiveness: Evaluators may consider such things as:

General Business Practices, including, but not limited to: Contractor provided experienced managers, and supervisors with the ability needed to meet contract requirements; Hired experienced subcontractors; Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner; The contractor cooperated to resolve problems, attending meetings (as applicable) and maintained communication to assure satisfactory resolution; Overall customer satisfaction and willingness to foster a spirit of partnership with owner. This is a critical element in this subfactor.

Pricing, including, but not limited to: The contractor submitted proposals that accurately represented the work required; The contractor's supporting price/cost information for modifications was accurate, complete and reasonable (not over inflated or under estimated); Provided well-substantiated pricing data for change orders.

Site Management/Superintendent, including, but not limited to: Site manager ensured compliance to contract requirements & safety regulations; Site manager acted promptly to resolve problems and ensure work quality; Site manager had sufficient authority to make decisions or take actions during project performance; Site manager consistently present on site when work was performed.

Sustainability requirement compliance including but not limited to: Extent to which the contract’s sustainability requirements were met. Achievement of USGBC recognition at certified or silver level on completed projects is considered a benefit to the Government and may receive additional consideration. Achievement above the silver level may receive additional consideration.

Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as: Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention to Construction Wage Requirements, including, but not limited to:

Submitted payrolls in a timely manner; Payrolls were complete and correct; Compliance with Drug Free Work Place requirements; Compliance with Executive Order16393, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade; Use of Recovered Material (Affirmative Procurement); Compliance with Environmental Regulations.

Compliance with Small Business Concerns Requirements: (Applicable to all offerors) Generally, offeror demonstrated adequate compliance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”. Past performance included adequate utilization of small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and veteran owned and service disabled veteran owned small businesses, on prior Government contracts.

The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment. Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. 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 be able to 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. Cost/Price Factor. This contract is a firm fixed price contract. Price is not rated.

The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are determined to be fair and reasonable in comparison to the competition, the current market conditions and/or recent prices for the same or similar requirements. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4).

The RFP requires firm-fixed prices for the individual contract line items. The Government will use a price reasonableness approach to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINS or Options is not occurring.

The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of a “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price (cost) as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. No proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions.

Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.