Sol_W912P522R0006 IIJA D-B MATOC_v2_6May2022_final.pdf

FY-22 USACE LRD Regional Construction Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract

(MATOC)

USACE LRD w hich is comprised of Buffalo District, Chicago District, Detroit District, Huntington District, Louisville District, Nashville District and Pittsburgh District, has a requirement for various General Construction Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity MATOCs. These MATOCs w ill be utilized to support the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The potential value of this MATOC pool is Not to Exceed (NTE) $250 Million.

The magnitude of the projects to be offered as task orders under the resulting contracts w ill be betw een approximately $1 to $20 Million in value..

The North American Industry Classif ication System (NAICS) code for the prototype project is 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction), w ith a size standard of $39.5M.

This acquisition is being solicited as Unrestricted..

Block 11 w ill be determined on a task order basis.

RAY KENDRICK 615-736-7932

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

06-May-2022

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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 ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________

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 __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________08 Jun 2022 (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 _______120 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

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CELRN-RC-N

DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING

110 9TH AVENUE SOUTH, RM A405

NASHVILLE TN 37203

W912P5

PAGE OF PAGES

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

01:00 PM (hour) Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

615-736-7124FAX:TEL: 615-736-7917 TEL: FAX:

W912P522R0006 1 OF 76

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

W912P522R0006

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job FY22 USACE LRD Regional Construction

FFP

FY22 USACE LRD Regional Construction Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC).

USACE LRD which is comprised of Buffalo District, Chicago District, Detroit District, Huntington District, Louisville District, Nashville District and Pittsburgh District, FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1JZ

NET AMT

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

SCOPE OF WORK

Scope:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District (LRN), has been tasked with acquiring an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for land-based construction of civil works within the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD) Area of Responsibility (AOR). This contract is intended to promote the efficient and expeditious execution of funds authorized by the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Public Law 117-58).

LRN intends to solicit the requirement as a Request for Proposal (RFP) in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

The RFP will be solicited as an IDIQ type, two-phase, design-build (D/B) and design-bid-build (D/B/B) construction MATOC on an unrestricted basis. LRN intends to select approximately five (5) contractors for the regional MATOC to compete for land-based civil works construction projects located within the geographic boundaries of the LRD AOR. (See Map Below for Geographic Boundaries.) The capacity for this IDIQ MATOC is not-to-exceed (NTE) $250M.

It is the intent of LRD to award an adequate number of MATOCs (both D-B and DB-B MATOCs) to establish a diverse pool of contractors to cover the region. The contracts will be for Design-Build and/or conventional construction (Design Bid-Build) and primarily for civil works projects (but could include military requirements) within the LRD mission boundaries.

District offices are located in Louisville, KY; Nashville, TN; Chicago, IL; Detroit, Ml; Huntington, WV; Pittsburgh, PA; and Buffalo, NY. The LRD mission boundaries encompass the following states (or part of the state): Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Construction task orders awarded under these MATOCs may consist of but are not limited to: Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build, working on/around locks and dams, stream and drainage channel improvement/modification, streambank stabilization, breakwater repair, pier repair, harbor deepening, bridge construction/repairs, industrial repairs, structural/mechanical/electrical repairs, site work/grading/landscaping/exterior lighting, security systems and fencing, concrete installation and repair of structural and non-structural slabs and site features, underground utility installation/replacement, local roadway and parking lot paving, equipment upgrades, mapping and surveying, instrumentation, lead paint and asbestos abatement, building renovation, all types of building/facilities/site/utility demolition, building debris type removal, and architectural, geotechnical, electrical, mechanical, structural, civil engineering analysis and design associated with all of the aforementioned tasks. All designs shall be performed by licensed professionals.

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. As noted below, offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation.

To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system.

Project: IIJA MATOC Design Build/Design Bid Build Construction The Solicitation Number is: W912P522R0006 The Bidder Quick Add Key is: BGGMSU-2CHTND

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Quick Add Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone.

Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and

Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key- Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email -Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Select Continue- A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

NOTES:

http://www.projnet.org/ProjNet

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form 30. In the case of any conflicts, the solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary.

3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds will be disabled on 26 May 2022 prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system after 31 May 2022 prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR PHASE I

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of seven (7) contractors for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) to provide design-build (D/B) and design-bid-build (D/B/B) land-based civil works construction services throughout the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Great Lakes and Rivers Division (LRD) mission boundaries. This MATOC will be administered by the USACE Nashville District (LRN). The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award multiple FFP contracts to the responsible Offerors, whose proposals conform with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposals are determined to represent the overall best value to the Government. After contract award, the Government intends to solicit projects to be competed among the MATOC contracts via Requests for Proposals (RFP) using individual task order awards. Task orders will be awarded based on the lowest price or the best value to the Government, as specified in each RFP. Source selection project award decisions will not be subject to the Disputes Clause of the MATOC.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement, and the Basis of Award is the Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) process.

Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase I Evaluation, no more than ten (10) of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. Offerors selected for Phase II will be invited to submit the information in the Phase II Section described below, Procedures for Submittal of Offerors for Phase II using a sample project and binding contract rates. Binding rates include hourly rates for key project members to include Project Manager, Superintendent, CQC Manager, Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO), Design Project Manager, Architect, Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, and Landscape Architect.

Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a target of seven (7) contracts to responsible Offerors whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this solicitation should limit submissions to include only the data that is essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's past performance, technical approach, small business participation plan, and other required information necessary for successful completion of the project.

2.1.2 This solicitation does NOT commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal. This solicitation also does not guarantee an award or multiple award contracts will result if the submissions do not completely satisfy the requirements stated herein.

2.1.3 Proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation, including attachments and addenda/amendments. Offerors must ensure there are no false claims or statements included that may result in disqualification or retraction of review considerations.

2.1.4 When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF1442 and the bid bond unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the overall authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal.

2.1.5 Deviations and exceptions to the terms and conditions of this solicitation are neither encouraged nor desired.

Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with those herein, the offer may be determined to be “unacceptable” and thus be ineligible for award. Should the Offeror have any questions related to the terms and conditions herein, these must be resolved with the Contracting Officer prior to submission of the offer.

2.2 The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide proposal submission instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via PIEE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND

CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall email their proposals using the following link:

Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) – https://piee.eb.mil

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Ray Kendrick at Ray.Kendrick@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer Stephen Hutchens at Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil. Proposals for this procurement shall be submitted via the above link.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to twenty-five (25) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 8GB). If you have multiple files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the PIEE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Do NOT scan documents to create a PDF as they must be able to be searched using the “FIND” function and may not be legible enough for proper search and review.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE PIEE WEBSITE:

Only proposals submitted via the above link will be considered for award.

All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. See PDF file titled “PIEE Vendor Submit Offer Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for proposal submission details.

Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS PIEE WEBSITE: All Offerors must be registered in PIEE in order to submit an offer to the solicitation. See PDF file “PIEE Vendor Access Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for registration/access details.

https://piee.eb.mil/ mailto:Ray.Kendrick@usace.army.mil mailto:Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS: For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. For proposals larger than the stated capacity of the PIEE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or, in some cases, hours. The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

The Government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted to reach the designated recipient.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided. It is highly recommended for each offeror to contact the respective Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer to ensure receipt of their proposal after submission to ensure the Government has received the offeror’s proposal.

2.3 For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Past Performance and Technical Approach as outlined below. All proposal materials shall be submitted via the PIEE website with a bookmarked table of contents and/or a standard electronic Tab Index. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume I shall be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF) and shall be either tabbed or bookmarked to reflect the division of Factors in accordance with Paragraph 2.4 below.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc.

on PIEE site. Offeror shall ensure the proposal is consistent with the submission requirements. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (Factor or Sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

Proposals shall have a cover page identifying the Offeror (name, address, point-of-contact), solicitation name and number.

Provide a separate page following the cover page with a bookmarked Table of Contents for ease of navigation within the electronic file(s).

“Confidential” projects and information can be submitted only if all required information from this solicitation is completely provided to permit thorough evaluation. If any submitted information cannot be disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government outside this solicitation, clear and conspicuous markings must be included wherever this limitation applies.

2.4 Volume 1 for Phase I shall be submitted via the PIEE website and include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Confidence o Prime Contractor o A/E Designer of Record (DOR)

• Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

2.5 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted via the PIEE website and shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Proposal Detail Sheet

• Volume II – Tab B: Standard Form 1442

• Volume II – Tab C: Joint Venture Agreements

• Volume II – Tab D: Evidence and Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

• Volume II – Tab E: Pre-Award Information

*NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Volume II shall be submitted via the PIEE website.

Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of USACE employees will evaluate the proposals.

Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence.

Technical proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the BVTO Process, as stated above. Evaluations will be based on the content of the information contained in the submitted proposal, corrections provided within the time frame of the solicitation, information obtained from other sources (i.e., past performance reviews, references), and responses to addenda/amendments to this solicitation only. Proposals will be evaluated compared to the solicitation and not against one another. The SSEB will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference.

Identities and other information about SSEB members are confidential and members will not be available for contact or discussion at any time.

3.2 The SSEB will evaluate proposals and assign a consensus rating for each proposal Factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase I submission and to furnish all information clearly and completely to allow the Government to determine their performance capabilities. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after the Phase I deadline and any extensions expire.

3.3 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two (2) parts: (1) proposal compliance review and responsibility determination and (2) technical evaluation.

3.3.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, and that the Offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and can obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety. This review also includes verification of the corporate and legal responsibilities of the Offeror to the extent that a contract may be executed with the Government if selected.

3.3.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance (Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant experience (Table 1, below) and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3. The SSEB will assign an adjectival rating to the Technical Factors. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 3).

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical proposal in their initial offer.

The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of up to the ten (10) most highly qualified offerors to continue to Phase II of the procurement.

4.2 Volume I – Technical Proposal

4.2.1 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance Confidence 1st

Prime Contractor

Design Firm

4.2.2 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach 2nd

4.3 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Proposal Data Sheet Not Rated

Tab B Standard Form 1442 Not Rated

Tab C Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Not Rated

Tab D Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof Not Rated of Financial Ability

Tab E Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.4 NOTE: Offeror is responsible for ensuring the PIEE site documents submitted are consistent throughout the proposal.

4.5 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1 - 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.

Table 2 - Past 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 Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Table 3 - Technical Proposal Ratings

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is unacceptable. The proposal is unawardable.

4.6 Definitions

1. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “CPARS” or “FAPIIS.”

2. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

3. Communications. Exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

4. Competitive Range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c)

5. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

6. Deviations. Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation from the content contained within this solicitation. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is considered a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for consideration of an award.

7. Discussions. Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

8. Evaluation Notice (EN). A written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

9. Performance Confidence Assessment. An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

10. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time during which past performance references are considered relevant.

11. Relevancy. As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

12. Risk. As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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

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

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

FAR 15.001.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance Confidence

The Past Performance Confidence Assessment will consider an Offeror’s previous relevant experience with similar projects. If the Offeror did not self-perform all work on this contract, then the Offeror must clearly demonstrate that its major subcontractors have the relevant technical experience, of a similar scope and complexity as required in the Specifications, for the portion of work they will perform.

The Government may place greater emphasis and importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. The Government may place greater importance on projects that were Design-Build (D/B), depending on the contractor’s role and size of the project.

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor

Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects. In order to be considered recent, these projects must be substantially complete (75% or more) or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last six (6) years from the date the solicitation was issued that are similar to this project in scope and magnitude. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if at least one (1) task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined for the project to be considered similar. Detailed project information shall be provided using the Project Detail Sheet format described at the end of this section. Ensure the proposal is clear which aspects of the work were performed by the Offeror and which aspects were performed by subcontractor(s).

• In order to be considered similar in scope, projects must demonstrate experience with projects for horizontal construction (new construction and/or renovation projects covering multiple-engineering disciplines (architectural, mechanical, structural, civil and/or electrical). The offeror’s description of the project must specifically identify each engineering disciplines utilized as part of the project.

• Similar in magnitude is defined as experience in the above-referenced construction areas on projects valued greater than or equal to $4 Million as a prime contractor or self-performed as a subcontractor.

At least one (1) presented project must be valued greater than $7 Million to be considered for evaluation. All other presented projects must be similar in magnitude (i.e., greater than $4 Million) to be considered for evaluation.

NOTE: Design-Bid-Build (D/B/B) projects may be submitted; however, they may be considered less relevant than D/B projects.

The format for the Project Sheet Detail is included for you at the end of this section. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

5.1.2 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier.

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date completed or will be completed. Note: If incomplete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

d) Identify the specific engineering disciplines utilized in completion of the project.

e) Identify whether the project involved new construction, renovation, or both.

f) Project Size (linear feet, square yardage, square footage, etc.) Note: If project included both new construction and renovation, please specify the square footage for new construction and renovation.

g) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

h) Whether the project was completed as a D/B project in collaboration with the proposed DOR.

i) Whether the project was completed for USACE.

Provide two (2) references (Owner’s representative and a Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Project Engineer, or equivalent) for all projects identified in Paragraph 5.1. Reference information must include project name, location, owner’s name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is attached for your convenience. USACE requests the Offeror’s client completes this questionnaire and submits it directly back to the Offeror. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. Offerors shall not reference a PPQ from a previous RFP. Resubmit the PPQ. However, this does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors shall submit Contracting Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in lieu of past performance references, if applicable.

In addition to the above, the Government is required to use CPARS as a source for past performance, when available. If not available and when necessary, the Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner and engineer satisfaction regarding qualifications and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, inquiries of Owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Government may not contact all the identified client references/points of contact. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the supplies outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will perform the work.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.1.3 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the Offeror’s experience as described in the proposal and assign a single confidence rating based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified. If the Offeror proposes the combining of two (2) or more companies, known as a Joint Venture (JV), for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror.

The experience of each JV partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work that aligns with the proposed roles for each JV partner for this project.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each Offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPIIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will perform the work.

Additionally, projects that are “similar in scope” and “similar in magnitude” and also demonstrate experience with one (1) or all the following, may receive additional consideration:

• Previous experience with USACE

• Experience with D/B Projects

• Established working relationship with the proposed DOR on prior design/build projects

• Demonstrated experience in successfully completing projects within LRD’s Area of

Responsibility (AOR)

• Land-Based Civil Works Construction Projects that involve vertical construction of administrative offices, warehouses, classrooms, hangars, and/or laboratories in excess of 4,500 square feet.

• Past Performance submissions that provide five (5) recent and relevant projects.

Offerors must clearly demonstrate in their project descriptions, any aspects of the above referenced additional consideration to receive credit.

5.1.4 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide one (1) primary design firm that will have design responsibility for the base IDIQ MATOC.

Offerors shall provide the same information as stated in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 for the AE DOR to be used on this project. The listed design firm must be used on subsequent task orders awarded under this MATOC. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one

(1) design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime Contractor.

5.1.5 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the Offeror’s experience as described in the proposal and assign a single confidence rating based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each Offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1.4. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPIIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will perform the work.

Additionally, projects that are “similar in scope” and “similar in magnitude” and demonstrate experience with one (1) or all the following, may receive additional consideration:

• Previous experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, NASA, USACE) D/B Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact)

• Experience with D/B Projects

• Established working relationship with the proposed Prime Contractor

• Demonstrated experience in successfully designing projects within LRD’s AOR

• Design of Land-Based Civil Works Construction Projects that involve vertical construction of administrative offices, warehouses, classrooms, hangars, and/or laboratories in excess of 4,500 square feet

Offerors must clearly demonstrate in their project descriptions, any aspects of the above referenced additional consideration to receive credit.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly DUNS) number with the JV proposal. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed five (5).

6.0 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative that describes the offeror’s philosophy and intended corporate technical approach for executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s D/B team, and how members of the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach Narrative shall address the information described below:

6.1.1 Communication Plan: Describe interactions and communications both within the D/B team and with USACE throughout the entirety of the project life cycle and the base MATOC life cycle.

6.1.2 Quality Control: Describe the D/B team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

• Provide specific information on how you will manage and track changes/revisions both during the design phase and construction phase of the project.

• Provide specific information describing how quality processes will be implemented and maintained throughout all phases of the project.

NOTE: Technical Approach Proposal shall be limited to no more than ten (10) pages, 8-1/2” x11”. Charts, tables, and illustrations should be limited to no larger than 11” x17” and shall be counted toward the 8-page limit. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman.