Am1_W912PL-16-R-0018.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

0001 Mar 9, 2016

USACE-LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

CONTRACTING DIVISION, WEST REGION BRANCH

915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 1440

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

W912PL-16-R-0018

Feb 17,2016

Design-Build, construction of 20,000ft Technical Support Facility(TCF), B2510 Addition, to include a Sensitive Compartmented information Facility (SCIF), at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

The following sections have been updated *. Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions *. Section 00 22 16 - Supplementary Instructions to Proposers *. Past Performance Questionnaire Form is provided as a WORD document.

The due date for receipt of proposals remains 23 March 2016, 2:00pm local time.

*Please see attached continuation page

Amendment 0001

Vandenberg Air Force Base

Design-Build, construction of 20,000ft Technical Support Facility(TCF), B2510 Addition, to include a Sensitive

Compartmented information Facility (SCIF), at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

W912PL-16-R-0018

Amendment # 0001

Continuation from Block 14, SF-30

Page numbers for Tab 1 have been increased from 10 pgs to (15 pgs)

Page numbers for Tab2 have been increased from 20 pages to (27pgs)

-END OF PAGE-

B2510 Addition W912PL-16-R-0018 Vandenberg AFB, CA Phase I

Section 00 01 00 - 2 Amendment 1

SECTION 00 01 00 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACTS FORMS AND CONTRACT CONDITIONS

00 01 00 Table of Contents

SF-1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award

00 01 05 Certification Page 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers 00 22 00 Supplementary Instructions Am1 00 22 16 Supplementary Instructions to Proposers Am1

00 45 00 Representations and Certifications 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions

Technical Specification Prepared by Sacramento District

Division 01 – General Requirements

Drawings – 15 sheets

Contract Attachments – provided as 2 separate files

B2510 W912PL-16-R-0018

00 22 00 - 1

SECTION 00 22 00

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS (PHASE I)

1. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3. WHO CAN SUBMIT

4. CONTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, PHASE I, VOLUME I

5. CONTENT FOR THE PHASE I TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, VOLUME II

00 22 00 - 2

1. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

1.2. Offerors must submit their Administrative requirements (Original plus one) as indicated in Paragraph 4 below, entitled “Content of Administrative Requirements, Phase I, VOL I.”

1.3. Each Offeror must submit their responses to the Phase I technical evaluation factors (Original plus 5 copies), as indicated in Paragraph 5 below, entitled, “Contents for the Phase I Technical Proposal, VOL II.”

1.4. Submit proposal packages, the Administrative Requirements (VOL I) and the Technical Proposal (VOL II) to the US Army Corps of Engineers at the address shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442 in this solicitation. The Government must receive your proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 in the solicitation.

Any and all amendments shall be acknowledged by completion of Block 19 of the Standard Form 1442 and returned with your proposal.

1.5. All information intended by the Offeror to be evaluated must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal, VOL II. No proposed price information should be included in the response to the technical evaluation factors.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Format Size: Use only 8 ½ by 11 inch paper; do not use 11” x 14” or 11” x 17” size sheets (e.g., fold-outs) unless another size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10 point, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print.

2.2. Refer to formatting instructions for each factor for further clarification of requirements.

2.3. 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.

2.4. Please ensure that the outside of each separate volume is clearly marked to indicate its content and the identity of the offeror. Additionally, the original Administrative Requirements and the original technical proposal should be clearly indicated on the outside cover.

2.5. “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

00 22 00 - 3

(3), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

2.6. Proposal Revisions. Offerors must indicate revisions to the Technical Proposal (via color highlight or bold).

3. WHO CAN SUBMIT

3.1. Any responsible, legally organized small business entity not identified on the Government’s Excluded Parties List as a debarred or suspended entity or an “inverted domestic corporation” as described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 9.108 may submit a proposal.

3.2. Any firm that contributed to and/or participated in the preparation of this solicitation, whether as a Government contractor or as a subcontractor to the Government contractor, is not eligible to participate in this solicitation as a prime contractor or a design contractor due to a conflict of interest. The Government considers such firms to have an unfair competitive advantage, and therefore will not consider such firms if proposed.

4. CONTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, PHASE I, VOLUME I

4.1. All the information required in Volume I shall be presented in a separate binder or envelope clearly marked VOLUME I, ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. Submit the information in 8.5”x11” paper. For Volume I, submit the original (and one copy).

Additionally, in the same envelope, the offeror is to provide the entire proposal (VOL I and VOL II) in Portable Document file (PDF) format on compact disk (CD). Provide two (2) CDs, one for Volume I and one for Volume II.

4.2. Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) (2).

This provision, entitled “Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions,” is included in full text in Section 00 21 16. Provide the following information in the Proposal Cover Sheet:

• Solicitation Number

• Name, address, telephone and facsimile number of offeror (and electronic address if available).

• DUNS, CAGE, and tax identification number of the offeror.

• Statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation.

• Name, address, telephone and facsimile number of offeror (and electronic address if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

• Acknowledgment that the offeror is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database, as required by FAR Clause No. 52.204-7, System for Award Management and DFARS 252.204-7004, Alternate A, System for Award Management.

00 22 00 - 4

4.3. Tab A shall contain a complete Standard Form 1442, “Solicitation, Offer and Award” including the Certification Section 00 01 05. The SF 1442 and the Certification shall be completed by the offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with the instructions at FAR 4.102.

4.4. Tab B – Acknowledgement of any and all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions of Standard Form 30 Amendment.

4.5. Tab C – Official Online System for Award Management representations and Certifications.

4.6. Tab D – Bonding Capacity – Demonstrate bonding capacity for providing design build services for this project. This information shall be in the format of a letter of current bonding capacity from a bonding company. Offerors submitting a proposal shall demonstrate capability to bond a single project in an amount equal or greater than $20,000,000.00 million. If the offeror cannot demonstrate sufficient bonding capacity during Phase I evaluation, further consideration of the proposal will be terminated and the offer will be rejected.

5. CONTENT FOR THE PHASE I TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, VOLUME II

5.1. The term “technical,” as used below and throughout Sections 00 22 00 and 00 22 16, refers to the non-cost factors other than past performance.

5.2. Past Performance. The past performance evaluation factor as used below and discussed throughout Sections 00 22 00 and 00 22 16 assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet the users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

5.3. Submit one (1) original and five (5) copies of the technical proposal and one (1) CD as instructed in paragraph 4.1 above.

5.4. The Offeror is required to propose a specific project team including key subcontractors for evaluation in response to this Request for Proposals. For purposes of this procurement, the terms “key subcontractors” are used to refer only to the prospective subcontractors whose qualifications, experience, and past performance will be evaluated by the Government as part of the source selection process. For reasons of efficiency, not all of the subcontractors critical to successful post-award contract performance have been included in this group. In order to streamline the proposal submission and evaluation process, please limit your submission to the information specifically requested. Information pertaining to other subcontractors not designated as “key” by the Government will be considered excess and may not be evaluated.

5.4.1.1. A key subcontractor is considered any firm besides the offeror itself proposed to

TAB #1 Factor 1: Management and Technical Approach TAB #2 Factor 2: Experience and Capability TAB #3 Factor 3: Past Performance

00 22 00 - 5 perform more than 15% of the total value of the project. The proposed Architect Engineer firm, if it is not the offeror, is considered a key subcontractor regardless of the value of its work and work product. The Government has designated the following major work elements as “key”:

5.4.2. Design and Construction for Special Access Program Facility (SAPF) and/or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) construction.

5.4.3. Electrical construction effort

5.4.4. Fire Suppression Mass Notification System (Honeywell/Notifier) and Security Alarms construction effort

5.4.5. Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, and Direct Digital Control (DDC) construction effort

5.4.6. Earthwork and Foundation Systems/Fastrack

5.4.7. Architectural Innovation and Design

5.4.8. Construction effort on a military installation

5.4.9. US Green Council’s LEED Silver certification

5.5. Any changes to key subcontractors in your Phase II proposal from your Phase 1 proposal will NOT be allowed.

5.6. The Offeror’s attention is directed to the clause 52.236-5001 in Section 00 73 00 titled “Personnel, Subcontractors and Outside Associates or Consultants”. In accordance with this clause, any post-award changes to the key personnel and/or key subcontractors in the accepted proposal will require contracting officer approval.

5.7. Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach. (TAB 1)

5.7.1. Management and Technical Approach

5.7.1.1. Provide information regarding its project and corporate management, lines of communications and technical approach for project execution. See, Section 00 22 16 Para.

5.3 for Factor 1 - Management and Technical Approach, for details on what information to submit for this evaluation factor

5.7.1.2. Formatting and Other Restrictions. The submission is limited to fifteen (15) 8- 1/2” x 11” pages total.

00 22 00 - 6

5.8. Factor 2 – Experience and Capability (TAB 2)

5.8.1. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

5.8.2. The offeror shall submit “example projects” similar in magnitude, complexity and scope as the RFP project for each of the three (3) capability areas. See, Section 00 22 16 Para. 5.4.1 for Factor 2 –Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability, for details on what information to submit for this evaluation factor

5.8.3. Start the information for each example project on a new page. The submission is limited to a total of twenty-seven (27) 8-1/2” x 11” pages, not including summary matrix.

5.8.4. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Corporate Resumes. The offeror shall submit resumes for persons directly responsible for carrying out the design and construction requirements of this contract. See, Section 00 22 16 Para. 5.4.2 for Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Corporate Resumes, for details on what information to submit for this evaluation factor.

5.8.4.1. Formatting and Other Restrictions. The submission for each contractor is limited to three (3) 8-1/2” x 11” pages

5.9 Factor 3 – Past Performance (TAB 3)

5.9.1 Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Past Performance

5.9.1.1 See, Section 00 22 16 Para. 5.5 For Factor 3- Past Performance, for details on what information to submit for this evaluation factor.

5.9.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 Experience and Capability. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance questionnaires 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 contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to

00 22 00 - 7 ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Michael G. Robinson via email at michael.g.robinson@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.

5.9.1.3 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting system (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 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.

5.9.1.4 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. In some instances, the government may call previous customers about performance they experienced on the projects.

5.9.1.5 Formatting and Other Restrictions Starts the information for each example project on a new page. There is not a page limitation for this submission. Follow the Past Performance Questionnaire Provided at the end of the section.

5.10 Key Subcontractor Commitment and Authorization Letters.

5.10.1 Provide a letter of commitment and authorization from each proposed key subcontractor that:

5.11.1.1States the business concern’s intent to work on this project in the proposed specified capacity if the offeror is awarded the contract; and

5.11.1.2 Provides authorization for the Government to discuss the key subcontractor’s past performance record with the offeror in conjunction with the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal.

5.11.2 Formatting and Other Restrictions. Each letter should be furnished on the business concern’s letterhead and signed by an authorized representative of the concern. There is not a page limitation for this submission.

mailto:michael.g.robinson@usace.army.mil

00 22 00 - 8

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM

1. Example Project Number: Start with “1” for the first of all submitted projects and number consecutively.

2. Name of Contractor(s)/Key Subcontractor (s) that Project is Demonstrating Experience:

3. Contract Number and Awarded Prime Contractor Name: Provide contract number assigned by the procuring Contracting Office and the name of the contractor that was awarded the contract.

4. Title and Location: Title and location of project or contract.

5. Project Owner: Project owner or user, such as a government agency or installation, an institution, or corporation or private individual. Include a Point of Contact name and phone number associated with the project owner; POC must be very familiar with the project firm’s performance.

6. Construction cost, at award and final cost. Explain reasons for cost growth if applicable

7. Contract award date, construction start date, scheduled completion date, and actual completion date. Explain reasons for growth if applicable.

8. Description of the Project: Provide contract type, and brief description of effort/role. If the firm (prime/key subcontractor) performed as a subcontractor, describe the work effort pertaining to the subcontracted effort, not the prime contract requirement. For each firm (prime/key subcontractor) that was involved on the example project, provide sufficient detail to establish the relevance to the current project to include (1) physical size, and (2) principal elements and special features of the work self-performed by that contractor’s employees.

9. Provide name of firm(s) (prime/key subcontractor) and branch offices, if appropriate, that were involved in the example project, their roles, and their respective contract numbers.

00 22 00 - 9

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to Complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name:

Cage Code: DUNS Number:

Address:

Email: Phone Number:

Point of Contact POC Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as:

Prime Contractor Subcontractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

% Work Performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type:

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 modification, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Specify)

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work:

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

High Medium Routine

CLIENT INFORMATION (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 was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Clients Signature:

00 22 00 - 10

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 should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(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 contractor were effective.

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 than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(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 appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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 actions appear or were ineffective.

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 serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

00 22 00 - 11

BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

LEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

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 PERFORMANCE:

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. MANAGEMENT/ 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)

00 22 00 - 12

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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) E VG S M U N

c) Would 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):

- END OF SECTION -

00 22 16 - 1

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS (PHASE I)

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

4. LIST OF PHASE I TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING SCHEME:

5. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

6. INTENT TO EVALUATE PHASE I TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS 14

7. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

8. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PREAWARD COSTS

00 22 16 - 2

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. This is a “Two Phase Design Build Acquisition” to be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 36.3. One solicitation covers both phases. In phase I, the Government will evaluate Performance Capability proposals to “Shortlist” a maximum of five

(5) of the most highly qualified offerors. Only those firms selected in Phase I will be allowed to participate in phase II. Detailed design criteria will then be added by amendment to the solicitation to start the Phase II stage of the Request for Proposals. Each firm selected for participation in the Phase II will then submit a design-technical proposal, the remainder of the Performance Capability proposal and an Administrative Requirements package containing the necessary bid bond, price proposal, pre-award survey data information and any other required information.

1.2. Phase I evaluation results will be used to determine which offerors will move forward to Phase II. Phase I proposals will be considered as part of the offerors overall proposal. Any post-award changes to key personnel and/or key subcontractor’s personnel will be subject to approval by the Government.

1.3. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representative of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer and other required personnel, will evaluate the proposals in strict accordance with Section 00 22 00 and 00 22 16 of the solicitation. The number and identities of the offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated on the factors and criteria described herein.

1.4. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 responsibility, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

00 22 16 - 3

2. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

2.1. In Phase I of this solicitation, the Government will first review non-cost price proposals to determine a competitive range for those offerors that will proceed to Phase II of this solicitation. Each non-cost evaluation factor will receive an adjectival rating. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the number of offerors that will be selected to submit Phase II - proposals will be a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors in the Government’s interest and consistent with the purposes and objectives of two-phase design build contracting.

2.2. The offerors who fall within the competitive range will be requested to submit proposals using Phase II evaluation factors which will be provided by amendment to this solicitation. In Phase II, the Government will select the offeror that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR PART 15. This process permits trade- offs between price and technical (“non-cost”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. In making this determination, all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

The results of Phase II evaluation ratings will be used to determine the most advantageous proposal to the Government. The award decision will be based on a comparative assessment in proposal against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

2.3. Proposals shall not use broad statements such as: “Offeror understands”, or “will comply with the specifications”, or statements paraphrasing the specifications, and general or overly broad statements such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”. Proposals with these types of statements will be rated non-acceptable.

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1. The offerors 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 will be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance could therefore result in a higher risk assessment and lower evaluation ratings, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) will cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

3.2. The adjectival rating of the Technical Proposal may be negatively affected if the specified information is not provided in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions in Section 00 22 00.

00 22 16 - 4

3.3. The adjectival rating of the Technical Proposal will be negatively affected if the proposals are generic, vague, or lacking in detail.

3.4. The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offerors technical proposal will be a consideration.

3.5. The Government may consider a proposal based on a deficient offer if the Government elects to enter into discussions with offerors and all deficiencies are remedied in revised proposals.

4. LIST OF PHASE I TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING

SCHEME:

4.1. The technical proposal will be evaluated based on the following Phase I technical evaluation factors.

4.2. Relative weights:

4.2.1. Factors 1 and 2 are approximately equal in importance, and when combined, are worth significantly more than factor 3.

4.2.2. Factor 1 is more important than factor 3

4.2.3. Factor 2 is more important than factor 3

4.3. Rating Scheme:

FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH (COMBINED

TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS)

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 indicate a through 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 performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

00 22 16 - 5

FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY (COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS)

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 indicate a through 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 performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

FACTOR 3 RATING SCHEME – PAST PERFORMANCE (RELEVANCY RATINGS)

RATING

DESCRIPTION

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.

FACTOR 3 RATING SCHEME PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATINGS)

RATING

DESCRIPTION

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.

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 a no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

00 22 16 - 6

4.4. Evaluations under the Past Performance Factor will result in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence rating for each offeror. This is the only formal “rating” applied at the Past performance Factor level.

5. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.1. The weighting of the evaluation factors takes into consideration not only how important that particular factor is to the overall project, but also the latitude for the Offeror to provide features that would be more advantageous to the Government. An evaluation of technical quality/technical merit is inherent in these criteria. Proposals which exceed the minimum criteria will therefore be rated higher than proposals which only meet the minimum criteria in accordance with the value of these features to the Government.

5.2. Risk to the Government will be evaluated. Proposal risk is an assessment of the weaknesses and risks associated with the Offerors proposed approach derived from the technical evaluation. Performance risk is an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts relative to the past performance factor.

5.3. Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach

5.3.1. Management and Technical Approach

5.3.1.1. The offeror shall submit information regarding its project and corporate management, lines of communications and technical approach for project execution. Show an organization chart and line of communication for the design build team to be used on this project The proposal should demonstrate how the offeror plans for use of its home office resources, total design & construction team participation and coordination during design and the construction activities problem avoidance, schedule delay avoidance, mitigation techniques, and quality control and safety processes. Design and Construction Quality Controls, safety processes, customer interface and scope versus design evolution shall also be demonstrated.

5.4. Factor 2 – Experience and Capability

5.4.1. Prime Contractor/Key Subcontractor Example Projects Demonstrating Experience and Capability

5.4.1.1. The offeror shall submit “example projects” similar in magnitude, complexity and scope for each of the three (3) below capability areas that demonstrate the prime’s and/or key subcontractor’s experience and capability to successfully complete the example project

00 22 16 - 7 in the past five (5) years. Multiple projects can demonstrate an experience and capability or an example project can demonstrate multiple experiences and capabilities.

5.4.1.1.1. At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the offeror’s design-build project management experience and capability as a prime contractor on a construction project of similar type and scope;

5.4.1.1.2. At least one with no more than three example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the Architect-Engineer Design Firm (prime or subcontractor) on a design effort of similar type and scope;

5.4.1.1.3. One example project each demonstrating the offeror’s key subcontractors experience and capability in the following efforts on a construction project of similar type and scope, with at least one on a military installation:

5.4.1.1.3.1. Design & construction for Special Access Program Facility (SAPF) and/or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) construction effort

5.4.1.1.3.2. Electrical construction effort

5.4.1.1.3.3. Fire Suppression Mass Notification System (Notifier) and Security Alarms construction effort

5.4.1.1.3.4. Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Direct Digital Controls construction effort

5.4.1.1.3.5. Earthwork and Foundation System/Fastrak

5.4.1.1.3.6. Architectural Innovation and Design

5.4.1.1.3.7. Construction effort on a military installation

5.4.1.1.3.8. USA Green Council’s LEED Silver Certification

5.4.1.2. Formatting and Other Restrictions.

5.4.1.2.1. Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the experience(s) and capability (ies) of which firm (i.e. prime, subcontractor) will perform the capability area identified in paragraph “5.4.1.1.3.2” above. Use an X for completed project, use M for completed project on a Military installation. For example:

00 22 16 - 8

5.4.1.2.2. Start the information for each example project on a new page. The submission is limited to a total of twenty-seven (27) 8-1/2” x 11” pages, not including summary matrix.

5.4.1.2.3. The Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8-1/2”x11” page.

5.4.1.2.4. Use the “Project Information Form” using the format at the end of this section

5.4.1.3. Example projects submitted to demonstrate a firm’s experience and capability must be relevant to the work that the firm will be performing under the prospective contract. The offeror should explain how the work performed by the proposed firm in the example projects is relevant to the proposed acquisition. Of interest are government projects with design/construction of sensitive compartmented information facilities, and construction completed or substantially complete under constrained schedule requirements.

5.4.1.4. Projects which are not substantially complete may be submitted, however, they will be given less weight than those which are considered to be substantially complete.

(For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance or that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.) If a design-build project is being used by an A-E

Example Project Capability

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7

Prime Design Build Project Management

X M

Architect-Engineer Design Firm X Special Access Program Facility (SAPF) and/or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) construction effort

M

Electrical Construction Effort X Fire Suppression Mass Notification System and Security Alarms construction effort

X

Earthwork and Foundation System/Fastrak

X

HVAC & DDC Construction Effort

X

USA Green Council’s LEED Silver Certification

X

00 22 16 - 9 to demonstrate their design capability, the design portion of the contract must be complete in order for it to be considered.

5.4.1.5. The more similarities an example project has with the prospective project, the more likely that experience will be considered a strength.

5.4.1.6. Example projects completed more than five years ago will be given less weight than more recently completed projects.

5.4.1.7. The following will be considered advantageous to the Government:

Prior experience on government military construction projects by Prime and Key Subcontractors Electrical construction experience Fire Suppression Mass Notification System and Security Alarms construction experience Experience with HVAC with Direct Digital Control (DDC) Experience with Earthwork and Foundation system/Fastrack Experience in LEED Silver Certification Experience in Special Access program Facility (SAPF) and/or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF)

5.4.1.8. Prime contractor’s prior subcontract/teaming experience on the example projects with key subcontractors proposed for this project is advantageous for evaluation purposes.

If the prime contractor is a Joint Venture and is submitting prior work experience as the same Joint Venture on relevant example projects, it would be considered advantageous for evaluation purposes. Project experience submitted for a Joint Venture that involved only one or more members of the joint venture must identify the specific member(s), and role that member held in the project. Project examples demonstrating the lead construction firm and the proposed A-E have successfully completed projects is considered advantageous for evaluation purposes. The involvement of proposed key personnel on the example project performing the same role as proposed for this project is advantageous for evaluation purposes.

5.4.1.9. Submitted project examples should identify the role the offeror or AE/key subcontractor had in the project, and what work it performed. No inference will be drawn that the offeror or AE/key subcontractor was a principle in the example project if the project narrative is unclear.

5.4.1.10. The Government realizes that the offeror may not be able to demonstrate relevant experience with all or most of the construction features of the RFP project on one example project; therefore, the Government will assess the team’s experience based on the

00 22 16 - 10 cumulative experience gained on relevant example projects. Generally, construction projects that are not substantially complete will be given less weight than construction projects which are either complete or substantially complete (For this purpose, “substantially complete” means that only punch list items remain for project acceptance or that the majority of the elements of the project have been turned over to the customer for beneficial occupancy.); however, for very large contracts spanning several years, the Government will determine whether sufficient progress has been made for the team member to have gained creditable relevant experience.

5.4.1.11. Generally, projects performed by an office of a team member that will not be performing work on this project with its own workforce will be given less weight during evaluation than projects performed by the office that will be performing work on this project with its own workforce.

5.4.1.12. Failure of the offeror to…