W912PL21R0001_Amendment0006.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.

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

0006 Jun 17, 2021

USACE-LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

CONTRACTING DIVISION, WEST REGION BRANCH

915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 1440

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

W912PL21R0001

Feb 26, 2021

Fort Rosecrans Historical Wall, San Diego County, CA.

Amendment issued to extend the proposal due date to 01 July 2021, 4:00 PM Pacific.

See SF30 Continuation Page for Revisions.

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.

INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as follows:

Item 1 (Contract ID Code) . Insert the contract type identification code that appears in the title block of the contract being modified.

Item 3 (Effective date) .

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

For a solicitation amendment, change order, or administrative change, the effective date shall be the issue date of the amendment, change order, or administrative change.

For a supplemental agreement, the effective date shall be the date agreed to by the contracting parties.

For a modification issued as an initial or confirming notice of termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date and the modification number of the confirming notice shall be the same as the effective date and modification number of the initial notice.

For a modification converting a termination for default to a termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the termination for default.

For a modification confirming the contacting officer's determination of the amount due in settlement of a contract termination, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the initial decision.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Item 6 (Issued By) . Insert the name and address of the issuing office. If applicable, insert the appropriate issuing office code in the code block.

Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor) . For modifications to a contract or order, enter the contractor's name, address, and code as shown in the original contract or order, unless changed by this or a previous modification.

Item 9, (Amendment of Solicitation No. - Dated), and 10, (Modification of Contract/Order No. - Dated ). Check the appropriate box and in the corresponding blanks insert the number and date of the original solicitation, contract, or order.

Item 12 (Accounting and Appropriation Data) .

When appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification on each affected accounting classification by inserting one of the following entries.

(2) Accounting classification Net decrease $

Include subject matter or short title of solicitation/contract where feasible.

Item 16B . The contracting officer's signature is not required on solicitation amendments. The contracting offier's signature is normally affixed last on supplemental agreements.

(i)

NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting classifications that cannot be placed in block 12, insert an asterisk and the words "See continuation sheet".

Item 13 . Check the appropriate box to indicate the type of modification. Insert in the corresponding blank the authority under which the modification is issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign this document. (See FAR 43.103.)

Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification) .

Organize amendments or modifications under the appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF) section headings from the applicable solicitation or contract. The UCF table of contents, however, shall not be set forth in this document Indicate the impact of the modification on the overall total contract price by inserting one of the following entries:

Total contract price increased by $

Total contract price decreased by $

Total contract price unchanged.

State reason for modification.

When removing, reinstating, or adding funds, identify the contract items and accounting classifications.

When the SF 30 is used to reflect a determination by the contracting officer of the amount due in settlement of a contract terminated for the convenience of the Government, the entry in Item 14 of the modification may be limited to --

A reference to the letter determination; and

A statement of the net amount determined to be due in settlement of the contract.

(g)

(h)

(i)

(ii)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83) BACK

(1) Accounting classification Net increase $

June 2021 Amendment 0006

Fort Rosecrans Historical Wall W912PL21R0001 San Diego County, CA

SF 30 (Continuation Page)

NOTICE TO BIDDERS:

This Amendment forms a part of the Covered Contract Documents and modifies the original Bidding Documents dated February 26, 2021, and as noted below. This Amendment shall become part of the Contract Documents to the same extent as though it had been written into the body thereof and bound therein. This Amendment is applicable to the items affected and all Bidders are held responsible for the contents herein. Acknowledgement of receipt of this Amendment shall be so noted in the space provided on Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to disqualification.

Revised Pages/Sections:

The following revised pages and/or sections, noted as Amendment 0006 and as listed below, are to replace the original pages/sections from Bid Documents dated 02/26/2021:

* SF 1442, Extends the proposal due date to 01 July 2021, 4:00 PM Pacific

* Section 00 22 16, Supplementary Instructions to Proposers

* Section 00 73 46, Davis Bacon Wage Rates CA20210001 dtd 06/11/2021

* Section 01 30 00, Administration Requirements, Pages 1 – 4, Division 01 – General Requirements

* Plaque Refurbishment Corrected Final Submittal, 09‐10‐2020

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NUMBER 2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

3. DATE ISSUED PAGE OF PAGES

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by the offeror.

4. CONTRACT NUMBER 5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER 6. PROJECT NUMBER

7. ISSUED BY CODE 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

9. FOR INFORMATION CALL

A. NAME B. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

SOLICITATION

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS (Title, identifying number, date):

11. The Contractor shall begin performance within calendar days and complete it within calendar days after receiving award, notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See .)

12A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by (hour)

(date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers will be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror’s name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

Designed using Perform Pro, WHS/DIOR, Oct 96

1442-103 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85) (EG)

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(d)

W912PL21R0001

X

02/26/2021 1 OF 2

USACE, Los Angeles District Contracting Division C/O Pat Bonilla 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 930 Los Angeles, CA 90017

See Item 7

Wendell L. Mendoza 213.452.3308

Fort Rosecrans Historical Wall, San Diego County, California. Project consists of includes replacing failing walls, rehabilitating damaged walls, replicating missing finials and capitals, modifying and providing new irrigation and landscaping, rebuilding curbs, gutters, rubble walls, providing new retaining walls, replacing concrete steps and railing, refurbishing entry gates to make operational and automated, providing a lighted crosswalk across Cabrillo Memorial Drive.

The work also includes refurbishing 30 plaques of various sizes throughout the grounds of the cemetery.

A complete design (drawings and specifications) is included.

The magnitude of construction is $1,000,000.00 - $5,000,000.00.

The project is issued as a Competitive SDVOSB. The NAICS code for this is 237990 Retaining Walls.

The project may be delayed, postponed, canceled or revised at anytime prior to award.

10 270

X X *Section 00 73 00

X 10

1 Digital 4:00 PM local time 01 July 2021 x

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK (REV. 4-85)

14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR (Include ZIP Code) 15. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (Include only if different than Item 14)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified below in strict accordance with the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in writing within calendar days after the date offers are due. (Insert any number equal or greater than the minimum requirement stated in 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation - give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER (Type or print) 20B. SIGNATURE 20C. OFFER DATE

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24.SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

ITEM 25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( )

26. ADMINISTERED BY 27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BYCODE

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all work requirements identified on this form and any continuation sheets for the consideration stated in this contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be governed by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and

(c) the clauses, representations, certifications, and specifications incorporated by reference in or attached to this contract.

29. AWARD. (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on this solicitation is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award consummates the contract, which consists of (a) the Government solicitation and your offer, and (b) this contract award. No further contractual document is necessary.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

(Type or print)

30B. SIGNATURE 30C. DATE

31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

DUNS NO.: TAX ID NO.:

CAGE CODE NO.:

( ) - ; FAX ( ) -

See Item 14

See Section 00 10 00 Solicitation Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule

USACE, Los Angeles District San Diego Resident Office

8775 AERO DRIVE, SUITE 232

SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

USACE, Finance Center

ATTN: CEFCO-AO-D

5722 Integrity Drive Millington, TN 38054-5005

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING Best Value Trade Off

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

CRITERIA

IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

V. INITIAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

VI. EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

VII. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

VIII. DISCUSSION PROCESS

IX. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

X. DEBRIEFINGS

SECTION 00 22 16

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 1.602-1(b), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals have been met. This includes the requirement of FAR 9.103 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 9.104-1 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation in accordance with FAR 9.104-2.

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING BEST VALUE TRADE OFF PROCESS

The Government will select the offer that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits trade-offs between price and technical factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer.

The award decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Proposals shall not use broad statements such as: “Offeror understands”, or “will comply with the specifications”, or statements paraphrasing the specifications, and general or overly broad statements such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”.

Proposals with these types of statements will be rated non-acceptable.

III. EVALUATION FACTORS (VOLUME II) AND SPECIFIC TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

All technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government is concerned with obtaining the most advantageous balance between technical merit/quality and cost/price to the Government. The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the technical proposals. If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received without discussions; therefore, the Offeror’s proposal should contain the best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

The evaluation process essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, and price evaluation.

Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are completed and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the first review, above. Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP requirements. Factor 1 will be rated on a “Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Marginal Confidence, Limited Confidence and No Confidence.” Factors 2 and Factor 3 will be rated on an “Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.”

Price Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation.

The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality 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 Offeror’s technical proposals. All offers with separately price line items and/or sub line items will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND WEIGHTING

Evaluation Factors are listed on below table. Weighting of Evaluation Factors is as follows: Factors 1 and 2 are considered the most important and are of equal value and are more important than Factor 3.

Factors 3 is less important than Factor 1 or 2. All technical factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

Evaluation Factors

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

TAB 1A Factor 1 Past Performance Factor 1 and 2 are the most important and are of equal value and are more important than Factor 3.

TAB 1B Factor 2 Specialized Experience and Technical Approach

Factor 1 and 2 are the most important and are of equal value and are more important than Factor 3.

TAB 1C

Factor 3

Key Personnel Factor 3 is less important than Factor 1 or 2.

1.0 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.1.1 The Past Performance Information to be submitted by the prime offeror in Volume 1, Factor 1, shall consist of Projects cited on the Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 1) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2). CPARS/CCASS are to be submitted for projects completed in support of the Department of Defense (DoD) projects. The Offeror shall provide a completed offeror performance evaluation, whether interim or final, and are available via the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (www.ppirs.gov). If a completed offeror performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (example, non-U.S. Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2). A sample PPQ transmittal letter is provided in Attachment 3. If, at time of evaluation, a completed offeror performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed offeror performance evaluation will govern. Additional details regarding submission requirements are identified below.

Past performance information consists of the following three aspects:

(a) RECENCY

(b) RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT

(c) QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE

1.1.1.1 RECENCY: Recency is defined as a Project that shall be no less than 50% completed within five

(5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

1.1.1.2 RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT: Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The Offeror shall provide no more than two (2) examples of “relevant” construction projects that involve the de-construction of structures preferably historic in nature and construction on a National Cemetery or on a Federal Government installation. The Offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 1) for a minimum of two (2) projects which meet the criteria described below. At least one (1) project shall be fully completed (facility turned over to the customer). If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide a minimum of one (1) project, submitting no more than two (2) projects total demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. Where the word “relevant” appears, it is understood to mean de-construction of structures preferably historic in nature and construction on a National Cemetery or on a Federal Government installation. All work must be new construction, or significant addition; and

(a) Project minimum size similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Government requirement; and

(b) Project construction value of at least $3,000,000.

(c) Experience in de-construction of structures preferably historic in nature and construction on a National Cemetery or on a Federal Government installation. Historic in nature means properties that were either on the National Historic registry or at least 50 years.

(d) The government will give more consideration to projects submitted that clearly demonstrate an Offerors' ability to construct a facility that is similar in size and scope to this project and to execute the project successfully, while containing cost and maintaining schedule.

1.1.1.3 QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE:

1.1.1.3.1 The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance on projects submitted in paragraph 1.1.1.2. The Offeror shall provide a completed offeror performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (www.ppirs.gov). If a completed offeror performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (example, non-U.S. Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2). If, at time of evaluation, a completed offeror performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed offeror performance evaluation will govern.

1.1.1.3.2 Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs by reference that were previously submitted for other RFPs unless the questionnaire previously completed was identical in format and content of Attachment 2.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

1.1.1.3.3 If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, offeror caused delays, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

1.1.1.3.4 Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as the offering Joint Venture. For the projects required by paragraph 1.1.1.2, the Offeror must provide projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation. If the Offeror cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV to meet the requirement, the Offeror must provide those “recent”, “relevant” projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by each JV member in their individual capacities. In such instance, each JV member must satisfy the requirement, to include any performed as the JV. If the JV has no “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by the JV, then each member of the JV must provide a minimum of one (1) project, but submitting no more than two (2) projects total demonstrating “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by the JV member that reflect the JV member’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by the RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT paragraph.

1.1.1.3.5 Provide the fully executed Joint Venture Agreement under this tab.

1.1.1.3.6 Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects or other recent projects not submitted by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

1.1.1.4 The Government will use the recency, relevant company effort and quality of past performance information submitted under this tab to assess the Offeror’s Past Performance to determine the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the scope of work described in this solicitation. Where the word “recent” appears it is understood to mean construction projects which are at least 50% complete (measured by actual progress and/or earned value) as of the RFP issue date or a construction project that has been completed within five (5) years of the RFP issue date. Where the word "project(s)" appears in this RFP Section, it is understood to mean project(s), contract(s), task order(s), or any other contract document provided for by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 2.101). Examples of projects submitted by the Offeror shall indicate their role as Prime Contractor on a contract for the de-construction of structures preferably historic in nature and construction on a National Cemetery or on a Federal Government installation for Government or for commercial/private sector customers.

1.1.1.5 Offerors are responsible for indicating the percentage of work that is complete (actual progress and/or earned value) if currently underway. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance on submitted projects. The Offeror shall provide a completed offeror performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (www.ppirs.gov). If a completed offeror performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (example, non-U.S. Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2). If, at time of evaluation, a completed offeror performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed offeror performance evaluation in PPIRS will govern. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

1.2 SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE.

The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed three (3) pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

1.3 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.3.1 An Offeror will receive one past performance confidence assessment rating (as defined in Paragraph 5.3.4 of this Section) that is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

1.3.1.2 Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms (Attachments 1 with corresponding evaluation from PPIRS or Attachment 2) will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations.

1.3.1.3 The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance (as defined in Paragraph 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 of this Section) in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

1.3.1.4 The Government will review the past performance information submitted and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) to interview the points of contact on the information sheets. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government's evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance is not limited to information on the projects listed in Attachment 1.

1.3.1.5 The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the Offeror or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Neutral Confidence will be assigned. However, the Government may determine that an offer receiving a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” based on the stated solicitation evaluation criteria.

1.3.1.6 If negative information from Reference Checks or other sources is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR Part 15. Any available information from PPIRS that is part of the official record will be utilized without any requirement for additional Offeror input as the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

1.3.1.7 The Government will evaluate the quality of past performance based on the elements listed below:

(a) Quality of Construction and Safety Record. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror. The Offerors safety record and overall safety program will also be evaluated.

(b) Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

(c) Cost/Financial Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the cost and financial management on past projects.

(d) Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

(e) Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to effective management of subcontractors on past projects.

FACTOR 2: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.0 Submission Requirements

2.1 This information considers the offerors’ specialized experience and technical approach to the construction of the type facilities specified in the RFP. The submissions shall not exceed five (5) pages to address the following:

2.1.1 Specialized Experience

Show two examples where the company has successfully completed two renovation projects on Historic Properties that were either on the National Historic registry or at least 50 years only.

2.1.2 Technical Approach

Explain how you intend to construct the project so that it integrates with the existing environment and blends into the historic nature of the Fort Rosecrans Cemetery. Show work phasing experience for projects requiring phasing due to continuous operation of the facility and Landscape protection/preservation experience and handling of landscape features safely during construction.

Identify and explain the roles and responsibilities of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of construction phases. Provide an organization chart identifying on-site and remote positions and staff.

Show the corporate organization and reporting chain for key personnel and explain the succession plan for replacement of key personnel. Also, include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor. Describe how the Offeror plans to coordinate working space(s) and site access with the Government. Describe how the Offeror plans to mitigate the risks of completing the construction project (mission impacts, utility outages, parking, noise, etc.). Briefly describe the Offeror's Quality Control Program including approach to Quality Control analysis and monitoring of performance against requirements and standards, and the feasibility of the Offeror's approach to ensuring achievement of the required levels of performance. How does the Offeror integrate subcontractors into the quality control process? How will the Offeror communicate and coordinate construction issues throughout the construction period with the Government? The Offeror shall present mechanisms for managing and interfacing with key subcontractors and the Government to include discussion of its techniques for communicating with its subcontractors/consultants and its plan for ensuring that performance is at the level required to ensure timely and effective contract execution.

Superior ratings will be given to showing work on National Cemeteries and also showing how work will be constructed with minimal interruptions to the working of the cemetery.

2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA –FACTOR 2 SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission.

Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of this construction project, the RFP requirements, and the Offeror’s capability to successfully execute an awarded contract based on a sound organizational, technical and risk management approach. Additional consideration may be given to an Offeror who provides:

(a) Evidence of previous successful teaming experience between current team members.

(b) Evidence of previous successful teaming experience between the prime and key subcontractors (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural).

(c) Evidence of their ability to mitigate risk while completing a large construction project.

(d) Demonstration of a technically feasible and innovative approaches to meeting the

Government’s requirements.

2.2.2 Offeror’s are cautioned that the Specialized Experience and Technical Approach shall not exceed five

(5) pages and that the Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained in the first five () pages.

3.0 FACTOR 3: KEY PERSONNEL

3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1 The Offeror shall complete Attachment 4 (Resume for Prime Contractor Key Personnel) which clearly indicates separate duties and responsibilities for everyone that will be assigned to this project. All personnel, including Prime Contractor Key Personnel are subject to security screening and must meet security requirements as stated in Specification Section 01-35-26. All years of experience must be chronologically documented. This section shall include data on the following personnel:

(a) Quality Control Manager. The CQC System Manager shall meet the qualifications of Specification Section 01 45 00.

(b) Superintendent. The Construction Project Superintendent(s) shall meet the qualifications of Specification Section 01 30 00.

(c) Project Manager. The Project Manager shall meet the qualifications of Specification Section 01 30 00

(d) Architectural Conservator. The Architectural Conservator shall meet the qualifications of

Specification Section 01 30 00.

3.1.2 The Offerors are required to keep the key personnel submitted in the proposal for the duration of the project. If after contract award, because of reasons beyond the control of the Offeror, the individuals named in this proposal are not able to fulfill this obligation, replacement personnel with qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal shall be presented for acceptance and approval by the Contracting Officer. Replacement individuals for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the credentials of each person. The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly show that each individual meets the listed requirements. Resumes shall include examples of project experience, including what capacity the individual served on each project listed, as well as the dates employed on each project, the monetary size of each project cited as experience and the educational qualifications of the proposed personnel shall be submitted. The Government will evaluate the required information for completeness and assess how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel in their proposal meet or exceed minimum experience and qualifications requirements of the RFP. (Or - The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly show that each individual similar to this project that will be assigned to this project. Indicate who will be on-site full time (including estimated arrival and departure dates) and MAIN office management. In addition, the offeror shall provide a summary of the duties, responsibilities, and delegated authorities of these individuals. Delegation of duties, responsibilities and authorities shall be provided to the Government with appointment letters from the President down the chain of command. In addition to meeting the personnel requirements and qualifications found in the

Corps of Engineers Safety and Health requirements Manual EM 385-1-1, this section shall include data on the following personnel.

4.0 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

4.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections, and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

4.2 EVALUATION

4.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to the RFP.

4.2.2 The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors.

4.2.3 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine the most highly qualified Offerors.

4.3 DEFINITIONS

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

4.3.2 Weakness. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.3.3 Significant Weakness. A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.3.4 Strength. Any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.3.5 Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

4.3.6 Uncertainty. Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

5.0 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

5.1 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and sub-factor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified.

5.2 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

5.3 Past Performance Ratings. Two ratings shall be assigned to Past Performance, a relevancy rating and a confidence rating.

5.3.1 The relevancy rating will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation. Relevancy is defined in paragraph 1.1.1.1 of this Section.

5.3.2 The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offeror’s that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown confidence rating.

5.3.3 Relevancy Rating System

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Factor 1 Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5.3.4 Confidence Rating System

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Factor 1 Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can be reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

5.4 Combined Technical/Risk Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal" or "Unacceptable" and a corresponding technical risk rating of “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” or “Unacceptable’ to each factor, which reflects the Government’s confidence in each Offerors technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Factor 2,3

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Combined Technical Risk Rating Adjectival Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

The Offeror’s adherence to prescribed page and formatting limitations prescribed will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, the Government will not evaluate excess information. If four pages are submitted in response to an item with a three page limitation, the information of the fourth page will not be evaluated.

The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specifications. Non-compliance with the technical specifications will be considered a deficiency and an…