W912PL-19-R-0033_Amendment0002.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 Amendment 000

1 29

0002 7 June 2019

W912PL

U.S Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles Dist CESPL-CT-E, East Region Branch 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90017

SEE ITEM 6

W912PL-19-R-0033

8 March 2019

DESIGN-BID-BUILD FY19 P117 MISSILE MOTOR MAZGAZINE (MMM) MODIFICATIONS

SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 Camp Navajo, Bellement, AZ Amendment 0002

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Specification

• SECTION 00 22 16 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

For Factor 2 delete the following sentence:

“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.”

• C-001 Under General Civil Notes, the following notes are added:

15. ALL TREES AND SLASH ARE TO BE CHIPPED AND BROADCAST WHERE FELLED. THE

REMAININGSTUMP SHALL BE GROUND IN PLACE

16. TREES WERE IDENTIFIED BY A FIELD SURVEY HOWEVER THE DESIGN OF SOME OF THE

DITCHES EXTENDED BEYOND THE AREA SURVEYED FOR TREES. ARIEL IMAGES WERE

USED TO CAPTURE THE QUANTITY OF TREES THAT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE SURVEY. THE

QUANTITY OF TREES THAT EXTEND WEST BEYOND THE TURNOUT ARE ESTIMATED BASED

ON THE AERIAL IMAGE. THE

QUANTITY OF TREES EAST OF THE ROAD WHERE A DITCH GOES AROUND THE IGLOO ARE

ESTIMATED BASED ON AERIAL IMAGE. THIS MAY BE THE CASE FOR IGLOOS C102, C107,

C110, C112, C116 AND C117. ALL OTHER IGLOO SITES HAVE EXACT NUMBER OF TREES TO

BE REMOVED.

E-508: Reference to aerial cable (3)#2 is deleted and replaced with (4)#2.

• Any conflict between the RFP Specification/Drawing and the Government Responses provided in the attached Bid Inquiry Contracting Officers Report, the latter take precedence. The Award Document set will be updated accordingly at time of award.

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

Section 00 22 16

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.

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 in the design and described in the specifications. Requirements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to site coordination

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

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.

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

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

Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 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 management, site superintendent, scheduler, quality control, and safety management.

Offeror’s Succession Plan will identify specific individuals who can step into key roles if needed, and provide some indication of what qualifications those individuals possess; not only for on-site personnel but for other essential employees or principals of the company as well.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to perform in the event it needs to replace business partners, and/or key personnel, including positions for project, site superintendent, scheduler, construction quality control, and safety management.

The Government will evaluate 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.

The offeror shall provide résumés for persons directly responsible for carrying out the construction requirements of this contract.

(a) The Government will evaluate construction personnel directly responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of this contract. Professional qualifications and years of relevant experience will both be assessed.

(b) Specifically the proposed Project Manager, Construction Site Superintendent, Quality Control (QC), Safety Manager, as required within the EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – CONTSRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL (Résumé).

(c) Technical Spec Section 01 45 01 requires the QC Manager to have a degree, however, on this procurement the degree requirement for Quality Control manager may be waived in lieu of experience. The QC manager must have the degree or minimum 8 years construction/engineering experience with at least 5 years as a CQC Manager or they may be considered deficient for this factor.

Minimum critical capabilities and demonstrated experience required include specialized Lightning Protection Systems (LPS) experience, testing and certification, and strict tolerance concrete work.

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

FACTOR 5: PROPOSED SCHEDULE

DETAILED SCHEDULE: showing major features of construction and narrative as required to support the schedule. Proposals will be evaluated as to the offeror’s ability to schedule the construction of the project.

The schedule shall show the remaining time for construction activities. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical understanding of the design, construction & logistical requirements to accomplish work.

The offeror shall show that significant submittals shall be completed to allow time for government reviews.

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

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.

EVALUATION FACTOR: The following are the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance to demonstrate the schedule. The offeror shall provide a proposed construction schedule which identifies what it considers the critical construction milestones for the project and provides enough detail to support the proposed duration(s).

The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to determine if the Offeror’s plan assures completion within the specified time stated in Section 00 73 00 or a shorter time proposed by the Offeror.

If the Offeror proposes a duration other than what is specified in Section 00 73 00, the Offeror shall state in a narrative the total number of calendar days you have shown in the proposed schedule for project execution and the difference in calendar days between your proposed duration and the project duration specified in Section 00 73 00.

Offeror shall acknowledge that the proposed duration will become contractually binding should you receive the award. State in the narrative the total number of calendar days you have shown in your proposed schedule for project execution and acknowledge that this duration will become contractually binding should you receive the award.

A schedule proposing less time than required in Section 00 73 00 will become the revised contract completion time.

The schedule will be evaluated to determine whether it is, complete, reasonable, realistic, and achievable.

Offeror may provide a brief description to discuss the offeror’s technical understanding of the work requirements that may not be evident in a milestone schedule, and convey the commitment to accomplish all work in accordance with the solicitation requirements and schedule. Also, construction methodology, quality control procedures, fundamental commissioning and the workability of the approach.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical understanding of the construction & logistical requirements to accomplish work, quality of the offeror’s schedule approach, workability of the approach, as well as the technical feasibility to perform successfully.

This schedule shall clearly show how it compares to the number of calendar days and the sequence of construction as stated in in Section 00 73 00 of the RFP. The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which critical milestones are to be achieved.

Give special attention to the following tasks:

(a) Show proposed completion date of the project and the total proposed project duration in calendar days.

(b) Show feature durations in calendar days. Do not use work days for durations. The selection board will not calculate between work days and calendar days required. It is the responsibility of the offeror to be clear and follow RFP requirements. Showing duration in work days may receive an Unacceptable rating.

(c) Show the construction phase for each major feature of construction. The schedule shall indicate the Offeror’s understanding of critical path features and building construction.

a. Include long lead material submittals and government review.

(d) Show the mobilization phase, including events associated with coordinating any pre-construction submittals and Government review

(e) Include significant infrastructure, utility relocations phasing, long lead procurement items, Design-Bid-Build FY19 P117 Missile Motor Magazine (MMM) W912PL-19-R-0033 submittals and government review. Indicate the Offeror’s understanding of the relationship between utility and infrastructure requirements and main facility construction needs.

(f) Include long lead material submittals and government review.

(g) Schedules showing durations for Government review of project submittals that are shorter than described in the RFP will be considered a deficiency, and will receive at best, a marginal rating. Schedules showing total project duration exceeding the number of calendar days stated in Section 00 73 00 will receive an unsatisfactory rating.

(h) Fast Track construction is authorized for this project, but is subject to the Contracting

Officer’s discretion to approve its use. A schedule based on a Fast Track process must explain how it will be used in this project and how it will affect the schedule. Fast Track may not be used as a reason to reduce Government review periods for construction submittals.

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."

Minimum critical capabilities and demonstrated experience required include

The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to determine if the Offeror’s plan assures completion within the specified duration stated in Section 00 73 00 or a shorter duration proposed by the Offeror.

The schedule will be evaluated to determine whether it is, complete, reasonable, realistic, and achievable.

The new mission and aircraft delivery schedule is sensitive to project schedule slippage. Construction delay could ripple throughout the planned program delaying aircraft deployment creating mission difficulties.

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."

VI. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

Price or cost to the Government will be evaluated and considered in the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the evaluation. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the Offerors Technical Proposal. All offers with separately priced line items or sub line items will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

VII. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions and receive revised proposals if later determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

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

VIII. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL:

The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being downgraded and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable. The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specifications and applicable building codes and regulations. Non-compliance with the technical specifications and/or applicable building codes and/or regulations will be considered a deficiency.

Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail, may be downgraded.

-END OF SECTION-

US Army Corps of Engineers ®

D R

A W

N

B

Y

D E

S I G

N E

D

B

Y

S U

B M

I T

T E

D

B

Y

C H

E C

K E

D

B

Y

I S

S U

E

D

A T

E

F I L

E

N

U M

B E

R

1 2 3 4 5

D

C

B

B

E

S T

V A

N K

O

N

O

R O

C H

E N

A

P

P R

O J E

C T

S P

E s

D a v i d

L e e

A P

R

SHEET ID

S I Z

E

A N

S I

D

F I L

E

N

A M

E

A

U

A

R M

Y

C

O R

P

O

F

E

N G

I N

E E

R S

S A

C R

A M

E N

T

D

I S

T R

I C

T

I N

H

O U

D

S

I G

N

N

N

T R

L

V E

S U

I T

E

P H

O E

N I X

A

Z

B

E

S T

V A

N K

O

NAVFAC NO.

BCOES SUBMITTAL

P

M

I S

S I L

E

M

O T

R

M

G

A Z

I N

E

M

O D

I F

I C

A T

I O

N S

B E

L L

E M

O N

T

A

R I Z

O N

A C

A M

P

N

A V

A J O

C I V

I

G

N

E R

N

T

E S

A

B B

R E

V I A

T I O

N S

A N

D

L

E G

E N

D

C-001

LEGEND:

TREE TO BE REMOVED

NEW GROUND WIRE

(E) GROUND WIRE

NEW DRAIN LINE

(E) DRAIN LINE

(E) CULVERT

(E) OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL

(E) U.G. SECONDARY ELECT.

NEW U.G. SECONDARY ELECT.

(E) CONTOUR

NEW CONTOUR

CENTER LINE

DIRECTION OF FLOW

RIP RAP

RIP RAP GUTTER

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

EARTH

ORDNANCE GROUND PEDESTAL

SURVEYED ITEM

ABBREVIATIONS:

Ø DIAMETER

AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ABC AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

BOT BOTTOM

BP BEGINNING POINT

BRK BREAK

BVCE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION

BVCS BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE STATION

BW BOTH WAYS

CIP CAST IN PLACE

CL CENTER LINE

CLR CLEAR

CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE

CONT CONTIUNOUS

CJ CONTROL JOINT

CRJ CONTROL JOINT

CSG COMPACTED SUBGRADE

DN DOWN

(E) EXISTING

EP END POINT

EX EXISTING

EG EXISTING GRADE

ELEV ELEVATION

EQ EQUAL

EVCE END VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION

EVCS END VERTICAL CURVE STATION

FF FINISH FLOOR

FG FINISH GRADE

ID IDENTIFICATION

INV INVERT

K CURVE COEFFICIENT

LAP LAP SPLICE

LF LINEAR FEET

LVC LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE

MECH MECHANICAL

MIN MINIMUM

MAX MAXIMUM

NOM NOMINAL

NTS NOT TO SCALE

OC ON CENTER

OH OVER HEAD

PC POINT OF CURVATURE

PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

PLCS PLACES

PT POINT

PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE

PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION

REF REFERENCE

SPCS SPACES

STA STATION

TYP TYPICAL

UG UNDERGROUND

1. THE EXISTING LOCATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, FEATURES, AND TREES AS

SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT GUARANTEED. VERIFICATION OF ALL DIMENSIONS IS

REQUIRED.

2. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, OFFSET DIMENSIONS FROM THE BUILDING INDICATED ARE FROM

THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL. BUILDING LOCATIONS ARE WITH RESPECT TO OUTER WALL LINES.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN EXCAVATION PERMIT FROM CAMP NAVAJO PRIOR TO

START OF ANY EXCAVATION OR GRADING ACTIVITIES.

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TONE AND PHYSICALLY VERIFY ALL CROSSINGS OF EXISTING

UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO VERIFY

AND CHECK ALL PERTINENT ELEVATION, LOCATION, AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS NOTED ON THE

DRAWINGS PRIOR TO PIPELINE UTILITY INSTALLATION. ANY DISCREPANCY WITH PLAN

ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTING

OFFICER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR CLARIFICATION.

5. EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TREES NOT INDICATED ON THE PLANS FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE

PRESERVED. IF ANY SUCH STRUCTURES OR TREES OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS,

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE NOTIFIED

BEFORE PROCEEDING.

6. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONNECTION

TO UTILITIES SHALL BE DONE WITH THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DISRUPTION AND SHALL BE

COORDINATED WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND CAMP NAVAJO. ANY ACTION AFFECTING

THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS SHALL BE COORDINATED

WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND CAMP NAVAJO.

7. ALL SERVICE CONNECTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CONTRACTING

OFFICER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK ON THE

NEW UTILITY LINES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL:

A. EXCAVATE BY HAND OR CAREFULLY WITH MACHINERY TO VERIFY THE MATERIALS, O.D.,

LOCATION, AND DEPTH OF THE EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES AND STRUCTURES WHICH THE

NEW WORK WILL CROSS OR CONNECT TO. CARE SHALL BE EXERCISED DURING

EXCAVATION AND TRENCHING.

B. VERIFY THAT THE NEW WORK CAN BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN OR NOTIFY THE C.O.R. OF ANY

DISCREPANCIES WHICH WILL PREVENT INSTALLATION OF THE WORK AS SHOWN.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION,

DEWATERING, AND EXCAVATION TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD LIABLE IN THE EVENT OF ANY DAMAGE AND HELD RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES

SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN ON THE

DRAWINGS BUT MADE KNOWN TO HIM. REPAIR OF DAMAGE TO UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES NOT

SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR

THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.

9. GOVERNMENT DISPOSAL AREA IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR DISPOSAL OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE

MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE ALL WASTE MATERIALS OUTSIDE THE

GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY.

10. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL DURING ALL PHASES OF

CONSTRUCTION. MARK TREES FOR REMOVAL BASED ON DEMO PLANS AT BEGINNING OF

PROJECT AND PROCEED WITH TREE REMOVAL. IF REMAINING TREES ARE IN THE WAY FOR

CONTRACTIBILITY OR WERE NOT ON THE SURVEY, ADDITIONAL REMOVAL MAY BE ALLOWED

WITH C.O.R. APPROVAL.

11. CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND STORAGE AREA (COSA) SHALL BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON

THE PROJECT LOCATION MAP. COORDINATE WITH CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR EXACT

LOCATION OF COSA. COSA SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AFTER PROJECT

COMPLETION. COSA SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SIGN POSTED SHOWING CONTRACTOR'S NAME,

POINT OF CONTACT (POC), AND PHONE NUMBER FOR POC (24 HOURS/DAY), IN CASE OF AN

EMERGENCY DURING OFF-HOURS.

12. PARKING FOR CONTRACTOR VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, ETC) AND CONTRACTOR

EMPLOYEE VEHICLES (POVS, ETC) SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE COSA AREA. CONTRACTOR AND

CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE VEHICLES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARK ANYWHERE ELSE WITHIN

THE BOUNDARIES OF CAMP NAVAJO OR OTHER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

13. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND

APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE

GOVERNMENT.

14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH FACILITY EVALUATION TEST (FET).

15. ALL TREES AND SLASH ARE TO BE CHIPPED AND BROADCAST WHERE FELLED. THE REMAINING

STUMP SHALL BE GROUND IN PLACE.

16. TREES WERE IDENTIFIED BY A FIELD SURVEY HOWEVER THE DESIGN OF SOME OF THE DITCHES

EXTENDED BEYOND THE AREA SURVEYED FOR TREES. ARIEL IMAGES WERE USED TO CAPTURE

THE QUANTITY OF TREES THAT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE SURVEY. THE QUANTITY OF TREES

THAT EXTEND WEST BEYOND THE TURNOUT ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON THE AERIAL IMAGE. THE

QUANTITY OF TREES EAST OF THE ROAD WHERE A DITCH GOES AROUND THE IGLOO ARE

ESTIMATED BASED ON AERIAL IMAGE. THIS MAY BE THE CASE FOR IGLOOS C102, C107, C110, C112, C116 AND C117. ALL OTHER IGLOO SITES HAVE EXACT NUMBER OF TREES TO BE

REMOVED.

GENERAL CIVIL NOTES:

1. PROJECT SITES HAVE NO AVAILABLE WATER. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A SAFETY PLAN AND

COORDINATE SAFETY PROCEDURES WITH CAMP NAVAJO IN CASE OF A FIRE DURING CONSTRUCTION.

2. EXISTING CULVERTS UNDER ROADWAYS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE WHEN GRADING ACTIVITIES

OCCUR OVER CULVERTS.

UTILITIES NOTES

1. RESTORE AND ESTABLISH ALL SURVEY MONUMENTS DISTURBED, DAMAGED, OR IMPACTED BY DEMOLITION

OR CONSTRUCTION.

2. CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:

HORIZONTAL PROJECTION: ARIZONA CENTRAL STATE PLANE (NAD83)

HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83)

VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88)

3. SEE SHEET C-002 FOR SURVEY CONTROL DATA AND FIELD SURVEY NOTES.

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY NOTES:

G

18282983

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Contracting Officers Report All Inquiries

Project: FY 19 P117 MUNITIONS MOTOR MAGAZINE, CAMP NAVAJO, Bellemont, AZ Review: W912PL-19-R- 0033 (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 45 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

7985640 Construction Management N/A

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will there be a scheduled site walk for this project?

By: Carla McCord; Loven Contracting; (9287749040). On: May 10 2019.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Site visit is conduced at the project site installation, Camp Navajo Arizona.

(Bellmont, AZ) West of Flagstaff.

May need to amend 52.236-27 SITE VISIT

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for-- Date: Wednesday, 22 May at 10 am Meeting Location: BLDG 16 Department of Public Works Conference Room, Camp Navajo (Bellmont) Arizona.

POC: Oscar Siqueiros, (623) 282-9854; Oscar.Siqueiros@usace.army.mil By: Joe Derungs; SPL Arizona/Nevada Area Office; (602-230-6938) On: May 13 2019

1-1 Government Response. An organized site visit has been scheduled for-- Date: Wednesday, 22 May at 10 am Meeting Location: BLDG 16 Department of Public Works Conference Room, Camp Navajo (Bellmont) Arizona.

POC: Oscar Siqueiros, (623) 282-9854; Oscar.Siqueiros@usace.army.mil By: Jimmy Barton; SPL Contracting East Region Branch; (213-452-3251) On: May 13 2019

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7987358 Contracting 1.6.7 Drawings

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Per 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." What drawings are expected to be submitted?

By: Marci Martin; Write Like That, Inc; (608-286-3913). On: May 13 2019. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Design and drawings are not required. If drawings are necessary by an offeror to convey or support their narrative and proposal to illustrate an approach or response to factors, the sections provides the size requirements. By: Joe Derungs; SPL Arizona/Nevada Area Office; (602-230-6938) On:

May 14 2019

1-1 Government Response. Design and drawings are not required. If drawings are necessary by an offeror to convey or support their narrative and proposal to illustrate an approach or response to factors, the sections provides the size requirements. By: Jimmy Barton; SPL Contracting East Region Branch; (213- 452-3251) On: May 21 2019

Current Request Status: Request…