Am3_SF30_W912PL-14-R-0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICAITON NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 your 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 APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

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

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

CHECK ONE 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.

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

1 2

0003 31Mar14

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles District ATTN: Contracting Division 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 930 Los Angeles, CA 90017

W912PL-14-R-0008

25Feb14

Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Mission Complex located in the northeast corner of Creech

AFB, NV.

Proposal due date is hereby extended from 10Apr14 to 24Apr14.

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes on the SF30 Continuation Page as follows:

FY 14 RPA Complex Physical Security Project W912PL-14-R-0008 Creech AFB, NV

SF-30 Continuation page - 1 Amendment 1

SF-30 Continuation Page – Amendment 3

Remove and Replace Section 00 21 16 and 00 22 16 in its entirety.

The following paragraph of Section 01 11 00 has been amended:

1. Paragraph 1.4.1.4

2. The following paragraph of Section 33 31 13.53 has been amended:

1. Paragraph 2.1.3

W912PL-14-R-0008

AMEND 0003

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

I GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

II GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

III SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL

IV SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

V PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

VI PERFORM ANCE ASSESSEMENT REPORT (PAR)

VII SAMPLE COVER LETTER

VIII NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORM ANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

I. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all offers, the Contracting Officer must receive sufficiently detailed information that clearly responds to the technical evaluation factors listed in Section 00 22 16.

Offerors shall submit their proposal packages in accordance with the instructions outlined in Section 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers.

Each Offeror must submit their responses to the technical evaluation factors in a Technical Proposal and Price Proposal. The Technical Proposal and Price Proposal must be submitted as separate distinct volumes. Both the Technical Proposal (Volume II) and a Price Proposal (Volume I) must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

No dollar amounts or pricing information from the Price Proposal are to be included in the responses to the technical evaluation factors.

All information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal.

II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

All written portions: Use only 8 ½ by 11 inch paper, unless another size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Do not use 11” X 14” or 11” X 17” size sheets (e.g. fold-outs) unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 12, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print.

Three-ring binders are preferred. Do not use spring clamps or exceed the recommended capacity of the fastener or binder. Do not use plastic multi-hole/spiral binding systems, heat binding systems, or other systems which do not facilitate the ready insertion of additional pages.

“Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror— Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (3), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

The Corps of Engineers recognizes that submittals by the Offeror may contain confidential or proprietary information; however, the Government reserves the right to make inquiries into the information disclosed. The submission of false or misleading information may be grounds for disqualification of the proposal.

Offeror(s) shall submit their proposal packages to the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (COE) in accordance with Section 00 21 16.

III. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I):

Number of Sets of the Price Proposal: Submit One (1) original and one electronic copy on CD.

Format and Contents of the Price Proposal/List of Tabs:

The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the following chart.

T AB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB #1

Proposal Cover Sheet

SF1442 Solicitation, Offer, and Award

TAB #2

The Completed Pricing Schedule

TAB #3

A Bid Guarantee (e.g., Standard Form 24, “Bid Bond”)

IV. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II):

Number of Sets and Pages of the Technical Proposal: Submit original hardcopy of the written Technical Proposal. In addition, submit one four complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “.pdf” file format. The Technical Proposals shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format, bound as a single document, with single-sided or double-sided pages being acceptable. Condensed print is not permitted. The Proposals shall be separated with section tabs, and the tabs shall clearly identify the contents of each section.

The Maximum number of pages for the Technical Proposal is thirty (30) pages single sided or fifteen

(15) pages double sided. Performance Assessment Report (PAR) are included within the page limitation. Resumes up to 5 pages single sided and the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) will not be included in the above page count. The Letters of Appreciation and graphic schedule(s) will not be included in the page count. Each page shall be sequentially numbered for that section.

Format and Contents of the Technical Proposal/List of Tabs: The original and all copies of the technical proposal will be appropriately labeled as such. Each set shall be organized using the tabs specified in the chart below. The tabs directly correlate to the evaluation factors identified in Section 00 22 16.

T AB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TAB #1 EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

TAB #2 PAST PERFORM ANCE

TAB #3 TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

TAB #4 SCHEDULE

TAB #5 CORPORATE/ M ANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Detailed Submission Requirements for the Technical Proposal: Submit detailed responses to the evaluation factors under each of the tabs as follows:

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

This factor will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s successful experience and proposed team’s experience (key subcontractors) on projects of similar type, scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the work that is required under this RFP.

FACTOR #2 PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor will assess the offeror’s past performance, evaluate whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to that effort to be acquired, and determine contractor capability to successfully perform the proposed effort.

FACTOR #3 TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to perform and satisfy all construction contract requirements. Responses to this factor must discuss the offeror’s technical understanding of the work requirements and their commitment to accomplish all the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements and integrated construction schedule.

FACTOR #4 SCHEDULE

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to schedule the construction of the project. The schedule shall show the 12 months construction activities in a way that minimizes the impact to the government following the phased approach the government has outlined within this RFP. The construction schedule shall clearly show long lead items, indicate the sequence of events and allow for submittals, inspections, and other key activities at the end of the construction cycle including but not limited to as-built drawings, O&M manuals, training, and 1354 Real Property preparation.

FACTOR #5 CORPORATE/MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to satisfy all design/build contract requirements within its Corporate Management Structure. The Government will evaluate corporate and construction management structure, experience and qualifications of the key personnel and major subcontractors proposed for the project to include the capability to staff, manage, resource and control successful projects. Personnel will be evaluated on their overall professional experience and on specific experience on projects of similar type, scope, and complexity to the work required under this RFP.

V. Proposal Cover Sheet:

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c)(i)-(v). This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition,” has been provided in full text in Section 00 21 16. The format is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number: W 912PL-14-R-0008

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic address (if available):

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

PERFORM ANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

(To be completed by Offeror)

1. Contractor (Firm being evaluated):

Name: Address:

2. Contract Number/ Task Order (TO) (if Applicable):

3. Solicitation Type: Negotiated or Sealed Bid

4. Contract/TO Type: Fixed-Price Cost, Reimbursement, Hybrid (explain)

5. Routine Difficult (low to high) Complexity of W ork 1 2 3 4 5

6. Contract/TO Dollar Value:

7. Contract/TO Status: Active, Complete, Completion Date (w/ extensions):

8. Description, location & relevancy of work:

9. W arranty or other problems encountered and how resolved

10. Name, Address, Telephone Number and E-mail of the Procuring Contracting Officer and/or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) (and other references, e.g., Administrative Contracting Officer, if applicable):

11. Check one of the following blocks:

A written performance evaluation was received for this project and is attached.

A written performance evaluation was not received for this project. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) has been sent to the reference(s) listed in Block 10, with a letter requesting that the completed questionnaire be returned directly to the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers by the closing date for this solicitation.

SAMPLE COVER LETTER

Date

SUBJECT: NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire

Name and Address of Reference

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, is conducting a review of our past performance history as part of an upcoming source selection acquisition.

Please complete the attached NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire to aid the Government in its evaluation of our past performance and FAX it directly to the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers, ATTN:

Tina Chavez at 213-452-3246. If you prefer, you may provide the requested information by email to Christina.Chavez@usace.arm y.mil.

The Government is requesting receipt of this information by 10:00 a.m. on 27 December 2013.

You are advised that it is Government policy that the identity of sources providing past performance information will not be released outside the Government.

We appreciate your efforts to help the Government fairly evaluate our record of past performance. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please contact Tina Chavez at telephone 213-452-3246.

Sincerely, Contractor

Attachment mailto:tracey.i.daggy@usace.army.mil

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORM ANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORM ATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORM ATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there

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

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

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORM ANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORM ANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. M ANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL M ANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

c) W ould you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION 00 22 16

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

III. LIST OF EVALUATION FACTORS (VOLUME II) AND SPECIFIC TECHNICAL EVALUATION .. 2

CRITERIA

IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

V. INITIAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

VI. EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

VII. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

VIII. DISCUSSION PROCESS

IX. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

X. DEBRIEFINGS

XI. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PREAWARD COSTS

SECTION 00 22 16

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), no contract will be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

The Government will make award to the offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The Government will first review non-cost technical proposals to determine which are acceptable to the Government.

Responses that the offeror understands, or will comply with the specifications, statements paraphrasing the specifications, and general or overly broad responses such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”, will be rated unacceptable. The objective of the Government is to award a contract to an offeror who submits a proposal that when evaluated is determined to meet the acceptability levels established in the solicitation for each non-cost evaluation factor. Each non-cost evaluation factor will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The award will be made to the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated proposed price.

III. LIST OF EVALUATION FACTORS (VOLUME II) AND SPECIFIC TECHNICAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

In order to be considered technically acceptable, proposals must meet the following minimum acceptable requirements:

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS

This factor will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s successful experience and proposed team’s experience (key subcontractors) on projects of similar type, scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the work that is required under this RFP.

Evaluation Factor: The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance to demonstrate experience on similar contracts. Offeror shall identify two (2) projects similar in scope, magnitude and complexity as the RFP project that the offeror has successfully completed as the prime contractor within the past five (5) years. Offeror shall demonstrate experience in security fencing of critical facilities and specifically where the fencing is used as a platform for an Intrusion Detection System (IDS). In addition, Offeror shall demonstrate experience with vehicle barrier systems, high security fencing, Anti-Terrorism Fence Protection (ATFP), Entry Control Points and underground utility systems. Offeror shall demonstrate experience with hydraulic excavating. Not all of this experience needs to be shown on one project, but Offeror should demonstrate he has had this experience in various projects. Experience can be demonstrated by General Contractor, by Key Subcontractors or Teaming Partners. Experience in IDS security fencing platform shall be considered relevant if that portion of the project exceeds $1,000,000. General Contractor shall show experience in similarly sized projects as this one and under similar types of secure working locations. Project description should explain how and why Offeror considers this to be similar to the RFP project. Provide a brief description of each project; describe its scope of the work, total dollar value of the contract at the time of award and at the time of completion.

Provide the name, address and telephone number of the owner. In the case of a federal, state or local government project, provide the name, address, and telephone number of the contracting officer.

Standard of Acceptability: The proposal is rated acceptable when it clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR #2 PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor will assess the offeror’s past performance, evaluate whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to that effort to be acquired, and determine contractor capability to successfully perform the proposed effort.

performance to demonstrate contractor capability to perform the proposed effort. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant and how well the contractor performed on the contracts will be based upon the efforts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity of projects successfully completed within the past five (5) years (projects in Tab #1) and projects substantially completed. In the event of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or of whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

1. Identify all contracts, including Federal, State, local government and private/commercial, for efforts similar to the Government requirement of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity which are either successfully completed within the past five years. Include projects shown in Factor 1. If Offeror is using a Key Subcontractor or Teaming Partner to substantiate experience in Factor 1, the Past Performance of these projects should be demonstrated here. For each project identified, describe the scope of the work, contract price at the time of award, project cost growth during contract performance, and contract price at the time of completion. Include explanation of the reasons for cost growth. Describe for each project the contract performance period set forth in the contract, time growth during contract performance, if any, and the number of days from the start of the project to acceptance by the owner/government agency. Include explanation for reasons for time growth. Identify and describe any warranty issues raised by the owner, and how the problems were resolved; if no warranty issues were raised, offerors should so state. Offeror is encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on the projects and the offeror’s corrective action. Past performance on State, local, and private/ commercial contracts will be evaluated equally with past performance on Federal contracts. Offeror(s) are encouraged to provide 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 solicitation. Important Note: See following paragraph regarding required consent for release of subcontractor past performance information. For each project, submit the following information in the formats provided at the end of this Section:

a. Furnish a Performance Assessment Report (PAR) for each referenced contract. If an official written performance evaluation/rating was not received, so indicate. A past performance questionnaire must be sent to the reference if a written performance evaluation/rating is not included in the proposal as an attachment to the Performance Assessment Report. The Offeror(s) is also encouraged to submit any letters of appreciation or similar correspondence that the Contractor received from the Owner/Customer at the time of contract performance/completion. However, the Offeror(s) is neither required nor requested to have the Owner/Customer write such a letter for the purpose of this solicitation. The Performance Assessment Report (PAR) will be included in the page count limitation. Formats for the Performance Assessment Report have been provided at the end of this Section titled: Performance Assessment Report.

b. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for

Factor 2 for PAST PERFORMANCE where a written performance evaluation/rating is not included in the proposal as an attachment to the performance assessment report.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Complete PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contact and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government point of contract, Ms. Christina Chavez via email at Christina.chavez@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five

(5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) will not be included in the page count limitation. Formats for the Past Sample Cover Letter and Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) has been provided at the end of this Section titled: Sample Cover Letter and Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ).

2. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information available for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), included Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owners representatives(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.

3. In conducting the performance risk assessment, the government may use data provided by the

Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including automated databases, contacting the owner or contracting officer of the project. The “References’ Past Performance/Quality Questionnaire” (Past Performance Reference Check in Section 00 21 16) is one of the means that may be used by the government to collect past performance information. The Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may also take into consideration the Offerors performance of contracts with the Agency.

4. The evaluation will take into consideration the Offerors record of conformance to contract specifications and standards of good workmanship; the Offerors safety performance, the Offerors adherence to contract cost, the Offerors adherence to contract schedule, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offerors history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, and timely award and management of subcontracts;

5. The evaluation will take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

6. The performance record of proposed major subcontractors and proposed key personnel might also be considered.

7. “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted unless all of the information required for evaluation purposes as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the mailto:Christina.chavez@usace.army.mil

Offeror(s) technical proposal. Offeror(s) that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offeror(s)—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

8. Release of Subcontractor Past Performance Information. Past performance information pertaining to a proposed subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the Offeror(s) by the Government without the proposed subcontractor’s consent. Therefore, if subcontractor past performance information is being utilized by the Offeror(s), the Offeror(s) must also submit as part of its technical proposal the subcontractor’s consent to release of its past performance information by the Government to the Offeror(s). If there is a problem with the proposed subcontractor’s past performance, the prospective prime contractor can be notified, but no details can be discussed without the proposed subcontractor’s permission.

Standard of Acceptability: The proposal is rated acceptable based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

FACTOR #3 TECHNICAL APPROACH, METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to perform and satisfy all construction contract requirements. Responses to this factor must discuss the offeror’s technical understanding of the work requirements and their commitment to accomplish all the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements and integrated construction schedule.

performance to demonstrate technical approach, methods, and procedures. Offeror shall describe in narrative form the technical approach it will take to address the unique challenges, opportunities and constraints inherent to this project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the unique requirements of the facility as portrayed in the discussion of construction intent for this project.

Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to the following:

1. NARRATIVE. Technical approach shall demonstrate how the entire project shall be constructed and phased. Construction techniques, equipment to be used and materials to be incorporated into the project shall be discussed. Offeror shall demonstrate how the Perimeter IDS fencing system will be constructed and how required tolerances and performance will be achieved.

Incorporation of vehicle barrier system and Entry Control Points shall be addressed. Hydraulic excavating procedures and operations shall be discussed. Discuss how underground utilities, lighting and power shall be integrated. Incorporate coordination and work required by Privatized Utility contractor. Discuss phasing and how access and required security levels of buildings and facilities will be achieved. Discus any interim completions dates needed. Discuss site boundary constraints and any potential impacts to adjacent facilities. Also discuss Quality Control procedures and implementation. The narrative shall include discussions of accessibility, security, staging and lay down, sequencing of work, traffic control, and site adjacencies as they relate to the Offeror’s ability to perform and construct this project.

FACTOR #4 SCHEDULE

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to schedule the construction of the project. The schedule shall show the 12 months construction activities in a way that minimizes the impact to the government following the phased approach the government has outlined within this RFP. The construction schedule shall clearly show long lead items, indicate the sequence of events and allow for submittals, inspections, and other key activities at the end of the construction cycle including but not limited to as-built drawings, O&M manuals, training, and 1354 Real Property preparation.

performance to demonstrate the schedule. The Offeror shall provide a narrative that includes, as a minimum, discussion of proposed sequence of work and phasing, mandatory phasing, testing, interim and final acceptance. Offers shall include a bar chart reflecting the major construction activities with the completion period from the applicable contract Notice to Proceed (NTP), required phasing and any interim completion dates. The proposal schedule shall be graphically presented, and may be on a maximum paper size of 11" x 17". The schedule shall reflect the major construction milestones, and the sequence of work required for this project. The schedule shall indicate start/finish dates of events, and durations. A detailed network analysis is not required as a proposal submittal item. As a minimum, Offeror's schedule shall include the Items of Work shown in Section 00 73 00, SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, Clause 52.211-10, “COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF WORK” (APR 1984).

Offerors are cautioned that if they do not meet the schedule completion times shown in Section 00800-1, Clause 52.211-10, of this Request for Proposals, their Technical Proposals may be rated Unacceptable for this factor. Offerors are cautioned that schedules showing shortened government review times for submittals may cause the Schedule evaluation factor to be rated unacceptable.

FACTOR #5 CORPORATE/MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to satisfy all design/build contract requirements within its Corporate Management Structure. The Government will evaluate corporate and construction management structure, experience and qualifications of the key personnel and major subcontractors proposed for the project to include the capability to staff, manage, resource and control successful projects. Personnel will be evaluated on their overall professional experience and on specific experience on projects of similar type, scope, and complexity to the work required under this RFP.

performance to demonstrate corporate management structure.

1. The offeror shall provide a narrative and visual representation. The Government will evaluate the management structure of illustrated organizational charts, described levels of personnel authority of the individuals involved specifically with this project and the involvement of the construction team, including major subcontractors. The management structure should enhance communication flow within the construction team as well as with the customer.

2. The offeror shall provide résumés for persons directly responsible for carrying out the construction requirements of this contract. The Government will evaluate construction personnel directly responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of this contract. Professional qualifications and years of relevant experience will both be assessed. Specifically the proposed Project Manager, Construction Site Superintendent, Safety Manager, Quality Control (QC) and Teaming/Key Subcontractor Key Managers. Offeror should identify individual(s)’ respective qualifications, responsibilities, and authority levels.

3. The RFP specifications provide specific qualification standards for certain key persons in terms of education, experience and training. Submission of a key person who does not meet at least the minimum threshold qualifications will result in a downgrade to the rating under this factor.

4. The offeror must explain its present workload, how its resources would be used to meet both its current workload and this project, and the availability of the proposed team to execute the contract. The Government will evaluate present workload and how its resources would be allocated among the competing interests, and the availability of a team to execute the contract

5. The Government will evaluate Offeror's Succession Plan: The offer must explain a succession plan for replacement of key partners or personnel, including project management, site superintendence, quality control, and safety management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to perform in the event it needs to replace business partners, key personnel, including positions for project, site superintendence, construction quality control and safety.

IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

The offeror’s adherence to prescribed page and formatting limitations prescribed will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, the Government will not evaluate excess information. If four pages are submitted in response to an item with a three page limitation, the information of the fourth page will not be evaluated. The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specifications. Noncompliance with the technical specifications will be considered a deficiency and an Unacceptable adjectival rating will be assigned.

V. INITIAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

The offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the format and/or the submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rated as unacceptable.

The offeror’s adherence to prescribed page and formatting limitations prescribed will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. Offerors may be given a chance to clarify certain aspects of their proposal and to resolve minor or clerical mistakes. However, offerors are not given an opportunity to respond to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies or revise their proposals.

The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specification. Technical proposals are given an overall rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The evaluation factors will be rated either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based upon the standards listed within the RFP. A rating of “Unacceptable” for any evaluation factor will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” and the proposal will be ineligible for award

Based upon review of the initial evaluation results, the SSA will decide to either (1) approve award without discussions, or (2) enter into discussions process

VI. EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

The LPTA procedure is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition. Therefore, price analysis will normally be used to determine the total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror.

The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. All offers with separately priced line items or sub line items will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

VII. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

Offerors may be given a chance to clarify certain aspects of their proposal and to resolve minor or clerical mistakes. However, offerors are not given an opportunity to respond to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies or revise their proposals.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and issue a Contract without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions and receive revised proposals if later determined to be necessary.

VIII. DISCUSSION PROCESS

The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

As a minimum, during discussions, the SSEB through the PCO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) significant weaknesses, and (c) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation.

This is accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs). All ENs shall clearly indicate the type of exchange being conducted (e.g. clarification, communication, etc). Any EN addressing a proposal deficiency or weakness shall clearly indicate that a deficiency/weakness exists. The PCO is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could in the opinion of the PCO be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award.

IX. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time.

After receipt of the FPR, the SSEB shall complete evaluation of the FPR. The evaluation criteria from the solicitation shall continue to be the basis for evaluation.

X. DEBRIEFINGS

The PCO shall ensure offerors are debriefed, if requested, in accordance with FAR 15.505 and FAR 15.506, as applicable.

XI. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PREAWARD COSTS

The Request for Proposal does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the initial and/or any subsequent proposals or for any other costs incurred prior to execution of the Contract.

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 1 13 DECEMBER 2013 For Official Use Only

RFP W912PL-R-14-0008

SECTION TABLE OF…