W912PL-19-R-0033_Amendment0001.pdf

(SEE ITEM 13)

Amendment 000

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 Camp Navajo, Bellement, AZ Amendment 0001

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Specification

• SECTION 00 22 00 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS:

- Add “Attachment 6 Experience and Qualifications – Construction Key Personnel (Resume)” Sample and update Table of Content.

• SECTION 00 22 16 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

- Page 10 Factor 5 Proposed Schedule Add: “The Offeror shall show that significant submittals shall be completed to allow time for government reviews. Magazines C110, C111, and C112 must be completed and ready for use no later than January 15, 2021 to meet the mission needs. The schedule shall show the construction activities outlined in Section 01 00 00, 1.12 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.”

- Page 11 Factor 5 Proposed Schedule, EVALUATION FACTOR Add: Offeror shall acknowledge that the proposed duration to complete the phasing outlined in Section 01 00 00 1.12 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES will become contractually binding should you receive the award."

- Page 11 Factor 5 Proposed Schedule, Minimum Critical Capabilities and demonstrated experience Required Add: The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to determine if the Offeror's plan assures completion of Magazines C110, C111, and C112 within the specified duration stated in Section 01 00 00 1.12."

• SF-1442, BLOCK 13A: Change Proposal Due Date from 7 June 2019, 2PM to 11 June 2019 2PM.

Section 00 22 00

SECTION 00 22 00

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

1.0. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: …………..…………………………

1.1. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: ..……………………………………………………...2

1.2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: ………………………………………………………………………….2

1.3. WHERE TO SUBMIT: ………………………………………………………………………………….3

1.4. SUBMISSION DEADLINE: ……………………………………………………………………………3

1.5 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I ): ………………………..3

1.6. CONTENT FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II):…………………………………...3

1.7. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)………………..4

ATTACHMENTS

1. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

2. PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

3. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4. SAMPLE COVER LETTER

5. NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

6. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – CONSTRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL (Resume Sample, Offeror Format is also acceptable)

SECTION 00 22 00

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

1.0. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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

1.1.2. Each Offeror must submit a Price Proposal, Volume I, and a Technical Proposal Volume II as separate distinct volumes. The Price Proposal, and Technical Proposal, must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

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

1.2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1.2.1. 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 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print.

1.2.2 The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and up to 10 pages of Resumes (single sided) for Factor 4 will not be included in the above page count.

1.2.3. Performance Assessment Reports (PAR) will be included in the page count, however, attachments such as any letters of appreciation or similar correspondence will not count against the page limitation.

1.2.4. Where 11”x17” max format is specifically authorized, it shall be folded to fit the 8 ½ by 11 inch format and binder sizes. These attachments will count against the page limitation. Each 11’x17” drawing(s) (if included) or schedule will count as one (1) page towards the page limitation.

1.2.5. All drawing sheets: 22” x 34” (1/2 size 11”x17”), 24" x 36" or 30" x 42" format. Full or half- size sets are acceptable, but must include a minimum of one (1) full-size set; half-size sets must be readable.

1.2.6. 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.

1.2.7. “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”.

TAB #1 SF 1442

TAB #2

The Completed Pricing Schedule with the Offeror’s proposed contract line item prices inserted in the appropriate spaces. Prices must be proposed for the Base Bid Items.

Do not round off to the nearest dollar. Check your pricing submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission.

TAB #3 A Bid Guarantee (e.g., Standard Form 24, “Bid Bond”) TAB #4 Representations & Certifications TAB #5 Teaming Agreement or Irrevocable Subcontractor Offer (if applicable)

1.3. WHERE TO SUBMIT:

1.3.1. Offeror(s) shall submit their proposal packages to the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (COE) as directed by the Request for Proposal and in accordance with Section 00 21 16.

1.4. SUBMISSION DEADLINE:

1.4.1. Offers shall be received by the Los Angeles District COE no later than the time and date specified as directed by the Request for Proposal and in accordance with Section 00 21 16.

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

1.5.1. Number of Sets of the Price Proposal: Submit One (1) original only and 1 CD

1.5.2. 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.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

1.6. CONTENT FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II):

1.6.1. TAB 1 – EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD

CONTRACTS (VOLUME II):

Factor 1: Offeror shall submit all information as required for evaluation as contained in Section 00 22 16.

1.6.2. TAB 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID

BUILD PROJECT (VOLUME II):

Offeror shall submit all information as required for evaluation as contained in Section 00 22 16.

1.6.3 TAB 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL APPROACH (VOLUME II)

1.6.4. TAB 4 – CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (VOLUME II)

1.6.5. TAB 5 –PROPOSED SCHEDULE (VOLUME II)

1.6.7 DRAWINGS –

Must be submitted in accordance with Section 00 22 16 and are included in the requirements under Factor 3, Technical Approach. All drawings shall be either full size (22" x 34") or half size (11" x 17") as described in Section 01012.

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

1.7.1. Number of Sets of the Technical Proposal: Submit the original and 4 additional sets of the written Technical Proposal, with each set separately packaged. In addition, submit one complete copy of the technical proposal on Compact Disk (CD) using a searchable “.pdf” file format.

1.7.1.1. 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 following chart. The main tabs directly correlate to the evaluation factors identified in Section 00 22 16. The Maximum number of pages for the Technical Proposal is forty (40) pages.

1.7.1.2. Detailed Submission Requirements for the Technical Proposal: Offeror(s) must submit detailed responses to the evaluation factors under each of the following volumes and tabs:

VOLUME TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

VOLUME II

TAB #1

EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID

BUILD CONTRACTS

(Factor 1 in Section 00 22 16)

TAB #2

PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND

DESIGN BID BUILD PROJECTS

(Factor 2 in Section 00 22 16)

VOLUME II

TAB #3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL APPROACH

(Factor 3 in Section 00 22 16)

VOLUME II TAB #4 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

(Factor 4 in Section 00 22 16)

TAB #5 PROPOSED SCHEDULE

(Factor 5 in Section 00 22 16)

Instructions regarding responses to the evaluation factors are detailed in Section 00 22 16 section entitled, “Proposed Evaluation and Contract Award”

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

(To be completed by Offeror)

1. Contractor (Firm being evaluated):

Name: Address:

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

3. Solicitation Type: Negotiated Sealed Bid

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

Routine Difficult (low to high) Complexity of Work 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. LEED Certification Building Construction:

10. Warranty or other problems encountered and how resolved:

11. 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): Check one of the following blocks:

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 performance questionnaire has been sent to the reference(s) listed in Block 10, with a letter requesting that the completed questionnaire be returned directly to the Corps of Engineers by the closing date for this solicitation.

1.8. PROPOSAL COVER SHEET:

1.8.1. Format for the 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: W912PL-19-R-0033

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.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SUBMITTAL

CONTENTS

NUMBER REQUIRED

VOLUME I

PRICE PROPOSAL/

PRO-FORMA

REQUIREMENTS

--PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

-- SF 1442 AND AMENDMENTS

--PRICING SCHEDULE

--OFFER GUARANTEE (“BID BOND”)

--REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

1 ORIGINAL ONLY

EXPERIENCE ON

SIMILAR DB AND

DBB PROJECTS

PROJECTS OF SIMILAR TYPES, SCOPES

AND COMPLEXITY

-RECENT RELEVANT TEAMING

EXPERIENCES

ORIGINAL + 4 SETS

VOLUME II PAST

PERFORMANCE ON

SIMILAR DB AND

DBB PROJECTS

-PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE

CHECK

-RELEVANT PROJECT SUMMARY

-RECENT RELEVANT PROJECT

INFORMATION

PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

PLAN

TECHNICAL

APPROACH

- PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

- NARRATIVES

CORPORATE

MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

- NARRATIVES

- VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS

- PRESENT WORKLOAD

- OFFEROR’S SUCCESSION PLAN

- KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES

PROPOSED

SCHEDULE

-PROJECT SCHEDULE NARRATIVE

-PROPOSED SCHEDULE

DRAWINGS

-CIVIL SITE PLAN,

-OVERALL FLOOR PLAN,

-EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

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. you may provide the requested information by email to Sandy Oquita jimmy.l.barton@usace.army.mil. or call at (213) 452-3251.

The Government is requesting receipt of this information by 2:00 p.m. on 25 March 2019.

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 Mr. Jimmy Barton by telephone

(213) 452-3251.

Sincerely, Contractor

Attachment mailto:jimmy.l.barton@usace.army.mil.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (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 Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

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. 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 ROPOSAL,

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 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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE 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

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 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)

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):

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – CONSTRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL

(Resume)

SEE ATTACHMENT 6

W912PL-19-R-0033 Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM)

Section 00 22 00 - 16

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – CONSTRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL

(Resume)

1. Name and job title: (If this job title differs from the one used in the solicitation to designate key personnel but the individual will be performing essentially the same functions, provide a cross-reference to the job title used in the solicitation.)

2. Total cumulative number of years individual has worked in the above position:

3. Individual’s current status: (Current employee of the Offeror, prospective employee of the Offeror, key subcontractor employee, p r o s p e c t i v e employee of a key subcontractor, etc...)

4. Name and address of individual’s current employer: (If other than the Offeror)

5. Individual’s projected availability to work on the prospective contract: (Estimated percentage of his or her time this person will be working on the prospective contract.)

6. Individual’s proposed role/assignment on this project: (Briefly describe the authorities, duties, and responsibilities this individual will have on the prospective contract.)

7. Total cumulative number of years worked in the Individual’s proposed role/assignment on this project: _____________

8. Individual’s relevant education: (Degree(s)/Year/Specialization):

9. Individual’s active registration: (If applicable)

State Year Discipline

10. Relevant Specialized Training: (If applicable)

11. Individual’s specific qualifications and experience relevant to this project:

(Provide specific details, not general statements. Explain their relevance. Provide any other information pertaining to the qualifications of this person for this project not specifically addressed above that directly relates to this evaluation subfactor (for example, prior design-bid-build experience). A complete list of the individual’s prior experience is neither required nor desired. Tailor the information provided to this acquisition as required within the RFP Sections for the applicable key personnel.)

NOTE: If the proposed person is not currently employed by either the Offeror or a proposed key subcontractor, provide a letter of commitment from the person stating his or her intent to work on this project if the Offeror is awarded the contract. The attachment is not included in the page limitation.

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

Section 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO

PROPOSERS

1.0 Eligibility for Contract Award………………………………………………………………….2

2.0 Source Selection Using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (Process)………………… .2

3.0 List of Technical Evaluation Factors………………………………………………………….. 2

4.0 The Relative Weights of Technical Evaluation Factors…………………………………….….2

5.0 Technical Evaluation Factors and Elevation Criteria……………………………..………

6.0 Evaluation of the Price Proposal………………………………………………………..……..15

7.0 Intent to Award without Discussions……………………………………………….……….….15

8.0 Proposal Submittal………………………………………………………………………… …15

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

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.

The Construction Cost Limitation is $11,840,000. Proposals that exceed the Construction Cost Limitation may be looked upon unfavorably in the evaluation process.

III. LIST OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on the following technical evaluation factors

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD CONTRACTS

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD

CONTRACTS

FACTOR 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 4 – CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

FACTOR 5 - PROPOSED SCHEDULE

IV. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING SCHEME.

FACTORS 1 THRU 5 RATING SCHEME RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

V. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Risk to the Government will be evaluated. Proposal risk is an assessment of the risks associated with the Offerors proposed approach derived from the technical evaluation for each factor. Performance risk is an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts relative to the past performance factor. Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government will derive if the offoeror has a reasonable expectation that they will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Offeror Experience and Offeror Past Performance, Offeror is defined as the firm identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one firm is listed in Block 14, then a signed Joint Venture/partnership agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the Joint Venture/partnership shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. However, each party of the Joint Venture/partnership must submit its own DUNS number with the Joint Venture/partnership proposal. Submitted projects performed by other entities than the Offeror, such as teaming joint venturers or partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as Offeror experience or Offeror past performance, unless those other entities are part of a Joint Venture/partnership Offeror as demonstrated by a signed Joint Venture/partnership agreement. Also, cited project examples must identify its role in the project if the Offeror was not the prime contractor – i.e., it was acting as a subcontractor at any tier.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD CONTRACTS

EXPERIENCE – The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s successful experience and proposed team’s experience (including key subcontractor experience as part of the prime contractor team) on projects of similar type, scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the work that is required under this RFP.

Offeror shall identify at least three (3) projects for the construction firm that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the RFP project, and which were successfully completed within the past five (5) years.

Provide a brief description of each project, describe its scope of work, as well as 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.

The offeror shall demonstrate qualifications and experience in Lightning Protection Systems (LPS) and Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), The Offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in LPS & IDS based on project experience on projects with extensive LPS testing that have achieved LPS Certification. Experience on actual certified LPS projects is considered critical to the government and meeting this factor. The narrative should address the incorporation of LPS for compliance in construction, testing and inspection and how the offeror’s experiences will ultimately result in a certified LPS project.

The offeror shall demonstrate qualifications and experience in specialized concrete construction and placement. The offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in projects with strict tolerance concrete work and testing and inspection. The narrative should address the incorporation of quality control and experience for compliance in construction.

The offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable construction and development, based on project experience.

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

Information submitted on projects currently under construction, design-bid-build or design-build will only be evaluated if the work is completed to an extent, from which experience can be creditable, i.e., at least 70% construction complete. Projects older than five years from date of proposal submittal will not be evaluated.

Minimum critical capabilities required include specialized Lightning Protection Systems (LPS) experience and certification, strict tolerance concrete work, Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), and ability to work in an active secure operations environment.

requirements of the solicitation

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD PROJECTS

PERFORMANCE – This area considers the Offeror's capabilities and past performance for successful completion of recent, relevant construction projects.

For each project identified in Factor #1, describe the scope of the work, contract price at the time of award, explain project cost growth during contract performance, and contract price at the time of completion.

Include explanation of the reasons for cost growth.

For each project, describe the contract performance period set forth in the contract, explain 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 of the reasons for time growth.

Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate Lightning Protection Systems (LPS) and certification.

Experience on actual certified LPS projects is considered critical to the government and meeting this factor. The narrative should address the offeror’s past performance in LPS construction, testing and inspection and how the offeror’s performance will result in a certified LPS project.

Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate strict tolerance concrete work. The narrative should address the offeror’s past performance in strict tolerance concrete construction, testing and inspection, and how the offeror’s performance will result in compliant concrete placement

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.

(a) The Government will evaluate past performance information to assess the risks associated with each Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on that Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts within the past five years as an indicator of the likelihood of successful completion of the proposed project in terms of time, cost and quality of work. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size, physically or in dollar value and technical or logistical complexity of the contracts identified in the proposal.

(b) The evaluation may take into consideration the Offeror’s record of conformance to contract specifications and standards of good workmanship; the Offeror’s safety performance, the Offeror’s adherence to contract cost, the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedule, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, and timely award and management of subcontracts;

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

(c) The evaluation may take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

(d) The performance record of proposed major subcontractors and proposed key personnel might also be considered. The result will be an evaluation of risk based on the Offerors record of past performance. for the Government to assess a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(e) In conducting the performance risk assessment, the government may use data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to automated databases, contacting the owner or contracting officer of the project. The “References’ Past Performance/Quality Questionnaire” (Past Performance Reference Check in Section 00 22 00) 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.

(f) While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete factual information pertaining to recent and relevant contracts from which the Government can ascertain past performance information rests with the Offeror. Inaccurate or incomplete data from the Offeror may result in a less than satisfactory past performance/risk-assessment for the Governments reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(g) Past performance information collected by the Government may be used for both the responsibility determination for this procurement and in conjunction with the technical evaluation.

(h) In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the Government is not precluded from making award to a higher-priced Offeror with a favorable past performance record over a lower-priced Offeror with a “neutral” past performance rating

For this solicitation under Past Performance Evaluation, the Government will assess Performance Confidence. The Government will first evaluate the relevancy of the projects submitted and compare them to the effort to be required in this source selection. The Government determines relevancy and in making this determination the following apply:

The Government will also assess how well an offeror performed on the projects submitted. The Government will, as necessary, confirm past performance data identified by the offeror in its proposal and obtain additional past performance information if available from other sources. When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

Factor 2 will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment is accosted with the acceptability rating scheme which takes into consideration each offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance which reflects the Government’s assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

For Factor 2, in a Joint venture, or if multiple firms are evaluated the rating for Factor 2 will be based on the firm on experience from one, the other, or both contractors.

(a) In Factor 2, the Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of any corporate entity or any Joint Venture business association by reference to the experience of its principal offerors, key employees, and related companies such as a parent company, its affiliated subsidiaries, or its various divisions if part of a large business entity.

(b) Only Past performance information of the corporate entity named on the signed SF 1442 submitted in Volume II will be evaluated.

(c) As to past performance information obtained by the Government from other sources, the government will only consider the past performance information for the corporate entity named on the SF 1442 submitted in Volume II.

If a prime contractor has little or no record of relevant past performance information, or the record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can be reasonably established for the factor, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the SSEB shall rate the offeror either favorable or unfavorable.

Standard for Acceptability: Based on the offeror’s performance records, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. This standard is met when the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL APPROACH

The P117 MMM is within a restricted secured area with operational facilities and industrial space sensitive to mission impact. Consideration will need to be given to constructing without interruption to adjacent operations.

This includes special construction factors and the requirement for additional inspections of workers, vehicles and equipment associated within controlled industrial areas; traffic mitigation (barriers, alternative routes, temporary fencing) to alleviate choke points or to divert traffic away from construction zones; restricted contractor lay-down, parking and/or storage areas; work stoppage for emergency drills, weapons handling;

and other events which require heightened security.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design and approach of the facility as portrayed in this RFP.

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

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the unique requirements of the work illustrated

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 in the design and described in the specifications. Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to site coordination

Evaluation Factor: The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract 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:

(a) NARRATIVE. Evaluations will consider the demonstrated technical understanding of coordination and project requirements for construction to include:

1. CIVIL/SITE DESIGN: The narrative shall include discussions on site layout , circulation, sequencing of work, economy of grading, security requirements, staging & lay down, material storage, utilities and site amenities, for the elements of the project. The narrative shall include discussions on site accessibility, traffic control, and site adjacencies as they relate to the Offeror’s ability to perform and construct this project. Evaluations will consider the demonstrated understanding of the design and sensitivity for the site.

2. LIFE SAFETY: It is considered important to address and the narrative should include discussions on Life Safety provisions, circulation, ability to operate with a potential of restricted freedom of movement to accept & store materials or stage & erect the facility.

3. OPERATIONS: It is considered important to address and the narrative should include discussions on construction within the secured area, operations nearby as they relate to the Offeror’s ability to perform and construct this project.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE: Also considered important is to address major components relating to shared or overlapping existing infrastructure or interrelated, shared constrains, utilities and major infrastructure for utility delivery.

Other considerations include understanding of the plans of the facility provided and relationships to effectively utilize horizontal and vertical space and maintain specified or illustrated critical clearances within the igloo.

5. STRUCTURAL. The narrative shall include discussions for the structural systems of the facility.

The narrative shall include discussions on system benefits, economy, and safety and security requirements.

6. CONCRETE FLOOR & RAIL SYSTEM. The narrative shall include discussions for the modifications to the existing magazines will include new reinforced concrete interior slabs on grade with embedded rails. The narrative shall include discussions on strict tolerance compliance and quality control requirements. . Evaluations will consider the demonstrated understanding of the design and sensitivity to the strict tolerances required.

7. MECHANICAL. The narrative shall include discussions for the mechanical systems for the facility. The narrative shall also include discussions on redundancies, sound attenuation, security requirements and interface with the existing utilities or systems. The mechanical narrative must address any considerations for fire protection and plumbing.

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033

8. ELECTRICAL. The narrative shall include discussions for electrical, lighting and communications systems for the facility. The narrative shall also include discussions on coordination and interface, discussions on system benefits, economy, safety and security requirements.

9. OPERABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY. The narrative shall include discussions for systems and other factors addressing reduced operations cost, and maintainability of the facility.

10. INCLIMATE WEATHER. The narrative shall include discussions on weather considerations for sequencing of work and constructability. Specifically civil site work versus interior facility work and access.

(b) ENERGY CONSERVATION. Evaluations will consider energy and conservation features integrated into the site and building construction, including renewable energy systems. The narrative should address the demonstrated understanding of how the construction will incorporate energy saving devices and systems into the building envelope, electrical and mechanical systems within the facility, and any renewable energy systems proposed.

(c) LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS (LPS). Evaluations will consider the demonstrated Understanding of LPS elements incorporated into the construction of the project. Understanding of certified LPS projects requirements is considered critical to the government and meeting this factor

(d) INTRUSION DETECTION SYTEMS (IDS). Evaluations will consider the demonstrated Understanding of IDS elements incorporated into the construction of the project.

Minimum critical capabilities and demonstrated understanding required include specialized Lightning Protection Systems (LPS) experience and certification, strict tolerance concrete work, Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), and ability to work in an active secure operations environment.

FACTOR 4: CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ overall management approach to help ensure a successful project completion. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ corporate, 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.

(a) ORGANIZATION CHART: The offeror shall provide narrative and visual representations. 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.

(b) WORKLOAD: The Offeror shall provide narrative and must explain its present workload; how its resources would be used to meet both its current workload and this project, and the availability of

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 the proposed construction team to execute the contract. In cases where members of the construction teams will be dividing their time between multiple projects, the offeror will indicate the relative anticipated availability of those team members. 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

(c) SUCCESSION PLAN The Government will evaluate Offeror's Succession Plan; the offer shall provide narrative and must explain a succession plan for replacement of key personnel for the construction team including principals of the company, Joint Venture Partners, project…