W912PL21R0012-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR DESIGN BUILD/DESIGN BID BUILD

CONSTRUCTION - NELLIS AND CREECH AFB, NEVADA.

1) SECTION 00 22 16 SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTION TO PROPOSERS, REPLACE ENTIRE SECTION.

2) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM 21 APRIL 2021 TO 28 APRIL 2021.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912PL21R0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Mar-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 you 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 APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Apr-2021

CODE

USACE, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

CONTRACTING DIVISION

915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 930

LOS ANGELES CA 90017

W912PL 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

RFP DUE DATE: 28 APRIL 2021.

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINTE QUANTITY W912PL21R0012

SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (SATOC) AMENDMENT 0002

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION

NELLIS AND CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA

00 22 16 - 1

Section 00 22 16

Supplementary Instruction to Proposers

1 OVERVIEW

1.1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE 1 AND 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES:

1.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE TRADE‐OFF PROCESS:

1.3 INITIAL TASK ORDER PROJECT:

1.4 TASK ORDERS:

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

2.2 TABS:

2.3 PAGE FORMATTING FOR SUBMISSIONS:

2.4 ELECTRONIC FORMAT:

2.5 PROPOSAL REVISIONS:

2.6 “CONFIDENTIAL” PROJECTS:

3 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUMMARY

3.1 VOLUME 1

3.2 PROPOSAL COVER SHEET:

3.3 VOLUME II

3.4 TABS A,B,C, and D - TECHNICAL FACTORS RESPONSE FOR PROPOSAL: 7

3.5 TAB A – FACTOR 1 ‐ EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY:

3.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.5.2 JOINT VENTURES:

3.5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

3.6 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE OF PRIME CONTRACTOR .. 12

3.6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

3.7 TAB C – FACTOR 3 ‐ DESIGN SUPPORT

3.7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

3.8 TAB D – FACTOR 4 – MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

3.8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

00 22 16 - 2

4 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

4.1 EVALUATION:

4.2 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM:

4.2.1 ADJECTIVAL RATING SCHEME:

4.2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS:

4.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPETITIVE RANGE (IF NECESSARY):

4.4 POSSIBLE EXCHANGES DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS:

4.5 DEFINITIONS:

5 PHASE 2 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

1 OVERVIEW

1.1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE 1 AND 2 SELECTION PROCEDURES:

For Phase 1, this phase consists of a process known in commercial design‐build as the “Request for Qualifications” or the acronym: “RFQ”. This solicitation refers to it as “Phase 1”. In Phase 1 of the 2 Phase selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design‐build construction contracts resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select no more than five (5) of the highest rated Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the SATOC contracts in Phase 2.

Offerors will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

1.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE TRADE‐OFF PROCESS:

This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non‐ cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest‐priced proposal. Offerors submit their performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. For those Offerors selected to compete during Phase 2, relative importance among technical factors are provided in Section 00 22 20 PHASE 2 DESIGN‐BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical Offerors will be established prior to discussion (if held). The SSEB will review, evaluate and rate the initial task order project technical proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP for those Offerors included in the competitive range.

Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the initial task order project cost proposal. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in making the final best‐value

00 22 16 - 3 determination for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

1.3 INITIAL TASK ORDER PROJECT:

Those Offerors selected to compete during Phase 2 of the solicitation shall submit Technical and Cost (Price) proposals for the initial task order as part of Phase 2 Proposal submittals. The initial task order project cost proposal will be used to evaluate price for the basic SATOC contract. The best value initial task order may be awarded to one of the most highly‐rated contractors from the Phase 2 participants if it is in the best interest of the Government.

1.4 TASK ORDERS:

Fixed‐price task orders shall normally be issued bilaterally against this SATOC. Individual task orders, other than the initial task order, will be issued as sole source task orders. Generally, award will be made to the contractor if the proposal provides the best value to the Government, unless otherwise indicated. Source Selection decisions will not be subject to the Disputes Clause of this SATOC.

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government.

Proposal clarity, organization, and cross‐referencing are mandatory. Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation. Offerors should provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section. The Contracting Officer may remove any Offeror from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the Offeror fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.2 TABS:

Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as shown in paragraph 3.2, “Phase I Proposal Submittal Summary”.

2.3 PAGE FORMATTING FOR SUBMISSIONS:

Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Font size shall not be less than 10 point. Do not use condensed font. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page. Sheet size of the proposal contents shall be 8‐1/2 inches x 11 inches where sheets are prepared specifically for this

00 22 16 - 4 proposal; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches and folded to 8‐1/2 inches x 11 inches shall be used; 11 x 17 inch sheets will be counted as two 8‐1/2 inch x 11 inch sheets.

2.4 PHASE I PAGE COUNT:

2.4.1 Volume I has no page count limitation.

2.4.2 Volume II page count limitation as follow:

The maximum number of pages for Volume II Proposal is fifty (50) pages single sided or twenty-five (25) pages double sided. The following items will not count against the page count:

Table of Contents, Section Tabs, letters of appreciation and similar correspondence, up to 1 page per resume for each proposed team member, Teaming Arrangements, CCASS/ACASS, PARS, CPARS, and the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

2.5 ELECTRONIC FORMAT:

The Offeror shall provide the complete Phase 1 Proposal in a .pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software to print to a .pdf file. The “find” feature within Adobe must be functional to search the proposal text. Do not scan or copy the documents into a .pdf file. The text portion of the proposal shall be contained as a single .pdf file. Sections of the proposal shall be linked to the index in logical order.

2.6 PROPOSAL REVISIONS:

Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED”, shall show the date of revision. A revised copy of the entire proposal in .pdf format shall be provided.

2.7 “CONFIDENTIAL” PROJECTS:

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

3 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUMMARY

00 22 16 - 5

The Phase 1 proposal shall be tabbed and submitted in the following format. Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria for each Tab are included in the following paragraphs. All information shall be provided within these tabbed sections and shall not be included as an appendix or attachment.

3.1 VOLUME 1 ADMINISTRATIVE

Location Description

TAB A Proposal Cover Sheet

Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, Tax ID, and DUNS number are all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture, it must also be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for the Designer of Record identified in Factor 2.

TAB B Table of Contents Identifies the Tabs/Contents of Volume I

TAB C SF 1442

Completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal

TAB D

SECTION 00 01 05

Certification Page

TAB E SECTION 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications.

TAB F Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable

TAB G Bonding Capability

The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond for Phase I, but is required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single

00 22 16 - 6 and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. Any letter found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination.

TAB H 8(a) Small Business

Proof that Small Business is an 8(a) located within the geographical area serviced by the U.S. Small Business Administration Region IX, which includes Arizona California, and Nevada and other 8(a) construction firms with a bona fide place of business within Region IX and the assigned NAICS code.

Offeror must certify that its approved business plan is on file and serviced by SBA Region IX and is located within Region IX or has a bona fide place of business in SBA Region IX. If your firm has a bona fide place of business approved by the SBA within Region IX, enclose the SBA letter approving your firm’s bona fide place of business with Region IX.

3.2 PROPOSAL COVER SHEET:

A Proposal Cover Sheet shall be provided (see below). The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents. Offers that violate these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration.

Format for the Proposal Cover Sheet:

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(c) (i)-(v). This provision, titled “Instructions to Proposers—Competitive Acquisition”. The format is as follows:

00 22 16 - 7

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

Solicitation Number: W912PL21R0012

Project Title

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

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

Names, titles, telephone, and electronic addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Proposer’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

Note: Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

3.3 VOLUME II TECHNIAL

3.4 TABS A,B,C, and D - TECHNICAL FACTORS RESPONSE FOR PROPOSAL:

Submit responses to the technical factors as identified for each tab.

Each Factor will be rated accordingly to the established evaluation criteria identified with Tables 1,2, and 3 as specified.

Location Factor Description Relative Importance

TAB A Factor 1 Experience and Capability

1st Most important factor

TAB B Factor 2 Past Performance of Prime Contractor

2nd (slightly less important than Factor 1)

00 22 16 - 8

TAB C Factor 3 Design Support 3rd(slightly less important than Factor 2)

TAB D Factor 4 Management Effectiveness

4th (slightly less important than Factor 3 )

3.5 TAB A – FACTOR 1 ‐ EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY:

Offerors will be evaluated on their experience in two areas: experience with task‐order‐type contracts and experience in various types of construction‐related work, including new construction, alterations, renovations and repairs, and design‐build construction. The potential project types, to be issued under the resulting contract as individual task orders include, but are not limited to: design-build or construction based on a provided design, general construction services including renovation/repair of existing structures/facilities, new construction of structures/facilities, flooring repairs, HVAC repairs and replacements, electrical, fire suppression, and demolition work. The following list is indicative of the variety of work that may be performed by task orders under this contract:

a. SAFETY ‐ Life safety upgrades, inflammatory gases and substances, industrial safety, industrial hygiene, fire protection, airfield pavements, confined‐space entry, radioactive and laser operations, hazardous materials, protection of work sites and property, and protection of workers.

b. CIVIL ‐ Ability to provide minor civil work (e.g., excavations, utility work, etc.) in support of plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

c. ARCHITECTURAL – Ability to provide architectural repairs and/or modifications in support of plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

d. ENVIRONMENTAL ‐ Removal and disposal of asbestos, lead‐based paint, underground storage tanks, lighting ballast, transformers and other hazardous materials to support plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

e. STRUCTURAL – Ability to provide structural engineering, repairs and/or modifications to support plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

f. INSTRUMENTATION ‐ Instrumentation for energy monitoring and control systems, direct digital control and fire protection.

g. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ‐ Conventional communication systems and fiber optics to support plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

00 22 16 - 9

h. SECURITY ‐ Facility security systems; anti‐terrorism/force protection measures to support plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work.

i. ELECTRICAL ‐ Ability to provide electrical engineering, replacement, repairs and/or modifications to existing facilities in support of plumbing, heating and air‐conditioning (HVAC) work

j. MECHANICAL – Ability to provide mechanical engineering and construction for replacement, repairs, and/or modifications to facility heating, ventilating, and air‐ conditioning (HVAC), plumbing systems, and commissioning.

3.5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project and in accordance with the Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors shall provide project information on a minimum of five (5) but no more than seven (7) completed or substantially complete projects, of which three (3) projects submitted can be currently under construction and at least 50% complete. Project examples must include one (1) project with a contract value equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (may be any type of project with multiple disciplines); all other projects must have a contract value equal to or greater than $500,000.

Use the following format to provide project information:

a. Project Title

b. Location

c. Contract Number

d. Contract Type (Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build)

e. Role of Offeror (address type of work performed, including design, percentage of work performed by the offeror, as applicable, and any proposed team members that were directly involved in this project, including work performed, roles and responsibilities)

f. Total Dollar Amount; Start and Completion Dates. If project is not complete, indicate percentage complete and anticipated completion date

g. Brief Description of Project. (Address how this project is similar to the types of task orders to be issued under this contract)

00 22 16 - 10

h. Customer Primary Point of Contact (name, relationship to project, agency/firm, phone number, and e-mail address). The Government may contact and interview project references. Reference information will not be revealed to other parties.

3.5.2 JOINT VENTURES:

If Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, the proposal shall clearly identify the contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each; describe the nature of the association; indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects. In addition, each company, including joint venture, shall list their Government contract experience. Provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement. Prior to award of any contract, a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement will be required. If approval of the Joint Venture Agreement is required by the Small Business Administration (SBA), failure to timely provide an approved Small Business Administration Joint Venture Agreement may prevent award of a contract.

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. The Offeror must provide at least two (2) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation.

If the JV has no "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV, then each member of the JV must provide three (3) to five (5) "recent", "relevant" projects performed by the JV member that reflect the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

The Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on this project and how the presented projects demonstrate the JV member's experience commensurate with their role on this project or how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

3.5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

Factor 1 shall be evaluated and rated using the ratings shown in Table 1.

The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent and relevant specialized experience of the Offeror with similar projects using the ratings described in Table 1. Experience with task order contracts may be demonstrated by provision of individual task orders in the experience form that meets the submission requirements as outlined in paragraph 3.3.1. If the Offeror cannot provide suitable relevant experience and the evaluators consider the information provided indicates that the Offeror has no relevant experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of corporate experience presents to the Government; and the proposal will be evaluated accordingly. The experience of individuals will not be evaluated under this factor.

00 22 16 - 11

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the Contractor in construction and/or design‐build, design-bid-build projects. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor.

To determine strengths and weaknesses, the Government will evaluate the following. This list is not all inclusive.

a. Projects designed for and constructed for the Corps of Engineers or other DoD components.

b. Projects that demonstrate a successful repetitive relationship with an AE firm.

c. Projects that demonstrate a successful repetitive relationship with Key subcontractors.

d. Projects in which the offeror was the prime contractor on the project.

e. Projects with higher contract value and complexity.

f. Projects that demonstrate sustainment, renovation and modernization projects with repeated successful relationships with subcontractors (i.e. electrical, mechanical, civil, etc.).

g. Projects with a value of $1 million or greater.

h. Fully completed projects rather than substantially complete projects.

i. Projects completed after 2018.

Provide a Summary Matrix that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the experience(s) and capability(ies) of the firm (i.e. prime, key subcontractor) that will perform those activities the capability area identified above. This Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8- 1/2’’x11’’ page and will not count toward the page count). Use an X for completed project, use M for completed project on a Military Installation.

Sample Summary Matrix

PROJECT

Example Project - Capability #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Design-Build Capability X M Electrical Design/Construction X Fire Suppression Mass Notification System and Security Alarms design/construction M

00 22 16 - 12

HVAC & DDC (Mechanical) Design/Construction X Earthwork, and Foundation System design/construction X

Architectural Innovation and Design X Use of an Escort Team X

3.6 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE OF PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner’s perspective.

The prime construction contractor and the design firm (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current phone numbers on the specific project experience sheets in Factor 1.

Offerors shall be evaluated on the construction projects presented in Factor 1 completed or substantially complete (at least 50% complete) in the last five (5) years. Projects submitted should reflect Design‐Build, Design-Bid-Build and construction experience. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine technical capability to perform the proposed contract and how well it satisfied its customers. The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal, together with that from other sources available to the Government, will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor. The following elements will be evaluated:

a. Quality of Construction

b. Timeliness of Performance

c. Customer Satisfaction

d. Subcontractor Management

e. Documentation

f. Safety Record

3.6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors are responsible for indicating the percentage of work that is completed, if currently underway. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of their past performance on submitted projects. The Offeror shall provide in their initial proposal a completed offeror performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) (www.cpars.gov). If a completed offeror performance evaluation does not exist in CPARS (example, non-U.S. Government projects) the Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire, hereinafter PPQ (Attachment 1). If, at time of evaluation, a completed offeror performance evaluation exists in CPARS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed offeror performance evaluation shall govern. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. This

00 22 16 - 13 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. Letters of Recommendation or Appreciation are considered supplemental information to demonstrate customer satisfaction and are not considered equal to offeror performance evaluations and/or detailed PPQs.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview points of contact on the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed references, if the listed reference is not available. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

3.6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

Factor 2 shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305 and will be rated using the ratings shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Unknown Confidence”.

Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

The first is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an Offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. This evaluation will reflect the Government's confidence in each firm's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contract.

00 22 16 - 14

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

a. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION. Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

b. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

c. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

d. SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level. For large businesses, the Government will also evaluate compliance with subcontracting plans.

e. DOCUMENTATION. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s level of meeting customer satisfaction on timeliness and quality of the documentation, reports, and other written materials completed by the Offeror on past projects.

f. SAFETY RECORD. All information available with respect to the Offeror’s safety record, to include CCASS/CPARS rating for safety, lost time incident rate, safety incentive program, safety awards, and other indications of improvements in safety will be taken into consideration in evaluating the Offeror’s overall safety record.

3.7 TAB C – FACTOR 3 ‐ DESIGN SUPPORT

Design capability is an important element of this contract. Design work incidental to construction as well as design/build task orders may be issued under this contract. Offerors will be evaluated on the designers’ ability to support the design requirements for task orders issued under this contract based on their qualifications and experience.

Provide a Summary Matrix (similar to example in Factor 2) that indicates which submitted example project(s) demonstrates the experiences and capabilities of the design firm that will perform those activities. This Summary Matrix is limited to one (1) 8-1/2’’x11’’ page and will not count toward the page count. Use an X for completed project, use T for team experience, and M for completed project on a Military Installation.

3.7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Contractor shall submit a narrative describing its Design Experience or the intended

00 22 16 - 15

Designer of Record’s (DOR) experience. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the A-E, and date of design completion.

Qualifications and experience for the designer firm to be utilized in support of this contract shall be provided. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s). A copy of the teaming agreement(s) shall be included at the end of this section.

Minimum qualifications for each key designer are professional engineering or architect registration. The following elements will be evaluated:

a. Example Projects. Provide up to four (4) example projects, completed or substantially completed (greater than 50% complete) within the last six (6) years of RFP release date.

that demonstrate the designer’s ability to support the design requirements for the variety of work that may be performed under this contract. Refer to Factor 1 above for a list of the variety of work that may be performed under this contract.

b. Projects have a minimum construction value of no less than $500,000 each and at least on of $2,000,000.

c. CADD Capabilities. Describe your CADD and Building Information modeling (BIM) capabilities.

d. Team Experience. Discuss any prior work experience between the design team and the

Offeror. Also discuss design team experience for the Corps of Engineers (COE) or other DOD agencies.

3.7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

Factor 3 shall be evaluated and rated using the ratings shown in Table 1.

The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent and relevant specialized experience of the Offeror with similar projects using the ratings described in Table 1. The evaluation considers the demonstrated record of the experience of the Offeror’s DOR on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Offerors may receive additional consideration in meeting the requirements of this Factor if they are able to demonstrate the successful design experience of the DOR in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 3.4.1. 3.6. and subparagraphs. Conversely, the DORs may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the variety of work described in paragraph 3.4.1. 3.6. DORs may receive additional consideration from the SSEB if it has performed more than three Design-Build projects. DORs may also receive additional consideration evidence is submitted concerning the level of commitment to the Prime Offeror.

Qualifications and experience for the designer firm to be utilized in support of this contract shall be provided. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design

00 22 16 - 16 firms(s). A copy of the teaming agreement(s) shall be included at the end of this section.

Minimum qualifications for each key designer are professional engineering or architect registration. To determine strengths and weaknesses, the Government will evaluate the following:

a. Example Projects. Projects will be evaluated and rated for relevancy compared to the variety of work that may be performed under this contract.

b. CADD Capabilities. The Government will review the designer’s CADD capabilities, experience, and compatibility with Microstation version 747 or higher and/or AutoCAD version 201r higher and BIM capabilities.

a. Team Experience. Prior work experience between the design team and the Offeror or design experience with the COE or other DOD agencies are not requirements for this solicitation. However, additional consideration will be provided for prior experience in any of these areas.

3.8 TAB D – FACTOR 4 – MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Offerors will be evaluated on their management effectiveness by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. The following elements will be evaluated:

a. Program Management Plan

b. Organizational Chart

c. Resumes

3.8.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall submit a Program Management Plan describing the Offeror’s approach to performing this task order contract. The Plan shall clearly, but concisely detail the organizational approach to program management and execution and explain how the firm expects to handle multiple major projects

The plan shall include an Organizational Chart outlining the entities responsible for program execution. The plan shall describe the proposed management structure for the Offeror, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Offeror’s organization. The proposal should demonstrate how the offeror plans for use of its home office resources, total design & construction team participation and coordination during design and the construction activities problem avoidance, schedule delay avoidance, mitigation techniques, and quality control and safety processes. Design and Construction Quality Controls, safety processes and customer interface shall also be

00 22 16 - 17 demonstrated. It shall describe how communications within the organization and with the Corps of Engineers will be conducted.

Prime Contractor/A-E Corporate Resumes (not included in page count, but limit 1 page per resume). The Offeror is required to submit a corporate resume for itself and the A-E Firm. If proposing as a Joint Venture, submit a corporate resume for each firm.

Add Key personnel resumes should include but not be limited to proposed Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Field CQC Manager, Site Health and Safety Manger, Design Project Manager, and Design QC Manager.

In the event that a contractor is part of a multi-segmented business concern, the information provided should directly pertain to the specific segment of the business concern (i.e., the division, group, unit, etc.) that will perform work under the prospective contract with its own workforce. Information pertaining to the business concern in general or to other offices or locations of the firm which will not be self-performing work under the prospective contract with their in-house personnel or affiliates should not be submitted.

A standard format for the resumes is not specified. However, the Government is interested in information such as the following:

a. Contractor name, office address, DUNS number, and telephone number for the office that will be performing work under the prospective contract.

b. Type of business organization; date organized; date and state of incorporation, if applicable.

c. Equipment owned (relevant to the work to be performed).

d. Statement regarding availability of resources necessary to complete the work to be performed by company.

e. Total value of work in past six years; Average annual gross income for the past six years.

f. Largest job in past five years (contract amount, date completed, description, owner).

g. Largest job ever completed (contract amount, date completed, description, and owner).

h. Type of work in which firm specializes.

i. Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience.

3.8.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA/RATING SCHEME:

00 22 16 - 18

Factor 4 shall be evaluated and using the ratings shown in Table 1.

The Government will evaluate the content of each offerors' Program Management Plan and will assign strengths and weaknesses based on how well each offeror demonstrates the following:

a. Organizational chart graphically represents the offeror’s organization in regard to other partnering firms/subcontractors/internal personnel and clearly indicates the name of the management team member (partnering firm/subcontractor/internal personnel).

b. Organizational Chart shows clears lines of authority among team members.

c. Organizational chart demonstrates the following information about all firms in the Offeror’s team, including partnering firms and subcontractors: the role/responsibility for Design Build AND for Design-Bid-Build projects AND any contractual arrangements that have been established (Project Manager, AE Design Manager, Construction Superintendent, mechanical, electrical etc...).

d. Management Plan clearly addresses how the Contractor will manage multiple task orders at the same location at the same time.

e. Management Plan identifies potential risks AND the associative mitigation for the identified risks in both design build AND design bid build projects.

f. Management Plan addresses successful coordination of AE work in conjunction with multiple task orders. Strengths and/or Weakness will be given based on the firm’s inclusion of the following items: schedule, submittals, changes, communication and other elements that would be necessary to manage AE firms successfully in a Design Build effort.

g. Management Plan addresses successful coordination between design and construction teams during all stages of design-build projects.

h. Resumes. The Government will review the key personnel provided by the Offeror to evaluate and rate the recent experience of the key personnel in similar projects. Resumes will be evaluated for qualifications and relevant technical experience to this project. The key personnel example projects should closely resemble the project identified in this solicitation.

4 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Evaluation Board (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 information or data incorporated by reference. Identities of SSEB members are confidential and members will not be available for

00 22 16 - 19 contact or discussion.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine 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 Phase 1.

4.1 EVALUATION:

Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

The Government intends to select Offerors to participate in Phase 2 without discussions;

however, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase 2, the Government will establish a “Competitive Range” and conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d).

If discussions are to be conducted, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly qualified. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit firms in the discussions to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government reserves the right to exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to essentially require a new Phase 1 proposal. The Government reserves the right to exclude an offer requiring extensive discussions and major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those more competitive offers.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly qualified, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their Phase 1 proposal revisions for final Phase 1 evaluation.

If (1) discussions are not considered necessary after initial proposal evaluation or (2) after discussions and final Phase 1 proposal submission, the SSEB will provide consensus input to the Contracting Officer, including the relative advantages and disadvantages between the higher rated Phase 1 offers.

The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

4.2 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM:

General. The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short‐list for participation in Phase 2. This same rating system is used in Phase 2.

00 22 16 - 20

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.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

4.2.1 ADJECTIVAL RATING SCHEME:

Table 1: Factors 1 and 4, Combined Technical Risk Rating

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is not awardable.

Ratings will be assigned for each of the Phase 1 technical evaluation factors for each offeror. No Overall rating will be assigned.

Table 2: Factors 2 and 3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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

00 22 16 - 21

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 3: Factors 2 and 3. Past Performance Confidence Rating Scheme

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 no sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably 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 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.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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

4.2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS:

Factor 1 Experience and Capability 1st Most important factor Factor 2 Past Performance of Prime Contractor 2nd (slightly less important than Factor 1) Factor 3 Design…