W912PM20R00030008.pdf

PN 86021

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

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a clerical error betw een the proposal due date stated on the SF-30 for Amendment 07 and the

Proposal Submission Instructions, also contained in Amendment 07.

The correct proposal due date shall be 05 May 2020.

All other provisions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////LAST ITEM//////////////////////////////////////////////

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Apr-2020

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 W912PM20R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Feb-2020

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 is extended, X 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

27-Apr-2020

CODE

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

WILMINGTON DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

69 DARLINGTON AVE

WILMINGTON NC 28403-1343

W912PM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PM20R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUC.

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS & REQUIREMENTS

PN 86021, SOF Assessment and Selection Training Compund

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits construction of a new Ready Building to adequately house its expanding number of students, an Obstacle Course, and two enlarged Entry Control

Points (ECPs). Special Operations Forces (SOF) conducts its missions and activities throughout the full range of military operations and in all environments, and provides the National

Command Authority and theater commanders a means to resolve crises, achieve U.S. objectives, and pursue U.S. strategic goals. The Ready Building increases the amount of permanent space means to house the Special Operations Candidates, while the Obstacle Course serves in the assessment and selection of said candidates. The Obstacle Course provides 25 stations at which the soldiers are to be assessed during the selection process. The Entry Control Points provide a physical means of protection and control of traffic entering and exiting Rowe Training Facility.

Both ECPs will have dedicated lanes for ingress and egress, as well as a rejection lane that will accommodate disallowed vehicles without permitting them into this controlled area.

The period of performance is 730 calendar days. Work location is Fort Bragg, North

Carolina. Antiterrorism/Force protection measures and sustainment mandates will be incorporated. The resultant contract will be Firm-Fixed Price (FFP).

1.2 The instructions and requirements contained herein establish uniform evaluation procedures for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process (See Federal Acquisition

Regulation 15.101-2). Proposals should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, offerors should submit their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or to submit a revised offer. The

Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

In accordance with 15.306(c) (1) and FAR Clause 52.215-1(f) (4), Instructions to Offerors –

Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.1 Contractor Team Arrangements. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. As further described in paragraph 2.3, below, the

Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the

Government would enter into a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned

CAGE Code.

2.2 If applicable, a 8(a) Joint Venture or SBA/DoD approved Mentor-Protégé must submit all required documentation with their offer to be considered responsive.

2.3 The Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter into a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned

CAGE Code. However, IAW 13 CFR 125.8(e), the Government will also evaluate past experience and past performance submitted by the individual firms that make up a joint venture.

2.4 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractor, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. "Successor" means an entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger). Successor entities shall clearly demonstrate in Volume I, Tab A of their proposal the official legal means performed to transform the former Predecessor

Company to its current Successor, legal business entity. Examples of substantive documentation may include but is not limited to Articles of Incorporation, Joint Venture Agreements, Novation

Agreements, and Merger Documentation. Note: The term ''successor'' does not include new offices/ divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.

2.5 Offerors shall submit their proposal in accordance with the Section 3. General Proposal

Format, paragraph 3.4.

2.6 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form

1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT.

3.1 Cover Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one Adobe PDF file is used for a volume, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical proposal.

3.4 Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal and a Technical Proposal via email to SAW-

CT-Militaryproposals@usace.army.mil, and to the Contracting Specialist, Ms. Amy A. Jenkins at amy.a.jenkins@usace.army.mil and to the Contracting Officer, Jere F. West at jere.f.west@usace.army.mil. These three email addresses are the ONLY addresses to which proposals may be sent. No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated. Both the Price

Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or

PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912PM20R0003_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912PM20R0003_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Offerors shall submit bid bonds (Standard Form 24) in both electronic and hard copy format.

Electronic copies of bid bonds shall be included in Volume 1: Offerors Certifications and

Price under Tab G. Hard copies of bid bonds shall be submitted via USPS, UPS, FedEx or

DHL. Hand carried bid bonds will not be accepted. Bid bond submissions shall be due by the proposal due date and time to the following address:

USACE-Wilmington

Contracting Division

Attn: Mr. Jere F. West

69 Darlington Avenue

Wilmington, NC 28403

Proposal due Date and Time:

Request For Proposal No: W912PM20R0003

Due Date of Proposal: 08 April 2020 13 April 2020 06 May 2020 05 May 2020 mailto:SAW-CT-Militaryproposals@usace.army.mil mailto:SAW-CT-Militaryproposals@usace.army.mil mailto:amy.a.jenkins@usace.army.mil mailto:jere.f.west@usace.army.mil

Time by which Proposals are due: 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time)

Title of Project: PN 86021 SOF Assessment and Selection Training Complex, Fort Bragg, North Carolina

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt by the USACE Outlook system (time stamped by the system), not by the date and time the offeror sent the proposal to the email addresses above. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late. The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3.5 The offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the offeror shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The

Government will not make assumptions concerning the offeror’s intent.

3.6 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein and as described in these instructions shall be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP, and these instructions may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for award.

3.7 Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined

“unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

3.8 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

3.8.1 VOLUME I: OFFEROR’S CERTIFICATIONS AND PRICE (FACTOR 1) AND

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (IF APPLICABLE)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted and one (1) original copy of the bid guarantee in both electronic and hardcopy shall be submitted.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Standard Form 1442

C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D FACTOR 1: PRICE

E Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications

F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable)

G Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond)

H LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY – SMALL

BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) (2) and must be submitted by all offerors. The format for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

TAB A – Cover sheet

1. The solicitation number;

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

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

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

6. Offerors should ensure telephone number; fax number, e-mail address, DUNS number and CAGE Code are all included. DUNS number will be used to access Past Performance

Information Retreival System (PPIRS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the PPIRS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. The offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB B - Standard Form 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 C - If applicable - All amendments must be acknowledged by all offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102.

TAB D – Factor 1 - Price. Proposed price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors to include the Subtotals and Totals section as found in Section 00 10 00 -

Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

TAB E - Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall include any narratives as it pertains to the requirement at 2.2 to document any teaming arrangement the offeror has or will enter into.

TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

TAB G - Offerors shall provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause

52.228-1, Bid Guarantee in both hard copy and electronically in Tab G.

TAB H - Subcontracting Plan – FOR LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY.

Subcontracting Plan shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, and SBA’s

Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) located at http://esrs.gov. Instructions for completion of requisite forms, as well as guidance on coordinating and preparing for all compliance reviews by Federal agencies can be found at this website. Offerors are to ensure subcontractors agree to submit to ESRS.

For the purposes of this Request for Proposal, please note that in accordance with

(IAW) FAR 28.001:

“Bond means a written instrument executed by a bidder or contractor (the “principal”), and a second party (the “surety” or “sureties”) (except as provided in 28.204), to assure fulfillment of the principal’s obligations to a third party (the “obligee” or “Government”), identified in the bond. If the principal’s obligations are not met, the bond assures payment, to the extent stipulated, of any loss sustained by the obligee.”

Bonds shall therefore be executed in the name of the legal entity, whether a joint venture, partnership or the Prime Contractor of an informal teaming arrangement, with whom the government would enter into a contract for a successful offeror. The entity named on the bond must be able to acquire bonding capacity on its own merits, and not as the result of indemnification from a subcontractor or third party.

3.8.2 VOLUME II: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (FACTORS 2-5)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

A Factor 2: Past Experience

B Factor 3: Past Performance

Page Limitations: The following page limitations are established for each factor described above:

Factor 2: Past Experience, Construction – Limited to 20 pages (maximum of 5 forms)

Factor 3: Past Performance –Limited to no fewer than three (3) and no more than five (5) projects. Individual project Past Performance Assessment

Questionnaires shall not exceed five (5) pages; Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first five (5) pages.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the Scope of Work with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME II: TAB A—FACTOR 2 – PAST EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION/MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 The offeror shall demonstrate the experience as a prime contractor on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

4.1.2 Relevant: The minimum requirement for a project of similar size, scope, or complexity is defined as having all of the following criteria:

o Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet (SF) or more aggregate interior space.

o Total value of project equal to or greater than $7,000,000.00 o At least one (1) of the projects submitted shall include a multi-story, steel frame building

4.1.3 Recent: The offeror shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), “Experience Information” forms, (See Appendix A, Example 1), in response to this factor. All projects submitted must be at least 50% complete within the last six (6) years preceding the date of the solicitation.

4.1.4 Offerors shall utilize Experience Information Form in Appendix A, Example 1. This sheet is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP. Except as specifically requested, the

Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed

FOUR (4) pages.

4.1.5 If the offeror is a Joint Venture (J-V), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity, or the individual firms that make up the joint venture. Offerors that are part of the DoD Mentor Protégé program may only submit two (2) recent and relevant project completed by the Mentor. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects. Experience of proposed subcontractors to be utilized on this project will not be considered.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor as identified in paragraph 4.1.2. Projects that were awarded on an individual task/delivery order basis will not be aggregated for purposes of meeting minimum or additional criteria. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

4.2.2 To be considered eligible for award, the Government will verify that each offeror has submitted a minimum of three (3) projects which meet the minimum criteria of paragraph 4.1.2.

4.2.3 The offeror’s Past Experience will be evaluated based on the Government’s assessment of each submitted project’s similarity (in terms of size, scope and complexity) to the work described in this RFP.

4.2.4 The Government will review the project experience of the offeror on projects provided in response to the Past Experience Factor. Offerors must meet all of the minimum acceptability standards to receive an “ACCEPTABLE” rating on this factor.

5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME II: TAB C — FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

5.1 SUBMISSION/MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent and relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective. The offeror shall complete and provide a Past Performance Assessment

Questionnaire (Appendix A, Example 3) on no fewer than three (3) and no more than five (5) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed recent and relevant.

5.1.1.1 Relevant: Offer must demonstrate experience as a prime contractor on projects of similar size, scope, or complexity. The minimum requirement for a project of similar size, scope, or complexity is defined as a requirement with all of the following:

o Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet (SF) or more aggregate interior space.

o Total value of project equal to or greater than $7,000,000.00 o At least one (1) of the projects submitted shall include a multi-story, steel frame building

5.1.1.2 Recent: Projects of similar size, scope, and complexity that must have been completed

(fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of the solicitation.

5.1.2 Though not required, ideally project past performance information submitted under this factor would be on the same projects submitted for consideration under FACTOR 2, PAST

EXPERIENCE. Individual project Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires shall not exceed five (5) pages; Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first five (5) pages. 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. The

Government will call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance

Assessment Questionnaire with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

5.1.3 The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other Government sources, and interviews with organizations or individuals familiar with the offeror’s performance.

5.1.4 Offerors shall utilize the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire in Appendix A, Example 3.

5.1.5 If the offeror is a Joint Venture (J-V), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity, or the individual firms that make up the joint venture. Offerors that are part of the DoD Mentor Protégé program may only submit two (2) recent and relevant project completed by the Mentor. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects. Experience of proposed subcontractors to be utilized on this project will not be considered.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. Where the Government views an offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as a risk which may impact an offeror’s rating for this factor despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

5.2.2 Past performance shall be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant to the effort to be acquired.

o Relevant: The minimum requirement for a project of similar size, scope, and complexity is defined as twenty thousand 20,000 square feet (SF) or more aggregate interior space, with a total value equal to or greater than $7,000,000.00. At least one

(1) of the projects submitted should include a multi-story, steel frame building o Recent: Projects of similar size, scope, and complexity that must have been completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of the initial proposal submission date.

5.2.3 The Government will evaluate ONLY recent and relevant past performance based on the elements listed below to assign a confidence rating of acceptable/unacceptable.

5.2.4 Second, the past performance evaluation shall determine how well the offeror performed on prior contracts. The contractor shall have no “unsatisfactory” or “marginal” ratings in the following criteria in Past Performance Information Retreival System (PPIRS): quality, schedule, cost control, management, regulatory compliance, and safety.

(1) Quality of Construction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the offeror’s ability to maintain quality control and accuracy of quality control documentation.

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

(3) Cost Control. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the offeror’s ability to efficiently utilize resources and demonstrate cost responsibility.

(4) Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the offeror’s ability to manage resources and key personnel.

(5) Regulatory Compliance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the offeror’s ability to enforce laws and regulations, correct deficiencies when non-compliant, and communicate laws and regulations to subcontractors.

(6) Safety. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

5.2.5 Failure to demonstrate the minimal acceptability standards under this factor will result in an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

6. EVALUATION STANDARDS.

6.1 The Government will evaluate proposals using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Source Selection Process of FAR 15.101-2.

6.2 Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using non-cost/price factors.

6.3 Tradeoffs will not be permitted.

6.4 Each evaluation factor and its risk rating combined will be determined and assigned using the adjectival and color descriptions contained herein. Upon assessment of each individual sub- factor and its risk rating, the appropriate overall rating for the technical proposal will be assigned using these acceptable and unacceptable (pass/fail) ratings as defined below:

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

6.5 Upon assessment of past performance information, the appropriate overall rating for past performance will be assigned using these acceptable and unacceptable (pass/fail) ratings as defined below:

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Red Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6.6 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

6.7 To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

7.1 Evaluation factors other than cost or price are of equal importance. An unacceptable rating on any non-price factor will render a proposal ineligible for award.

8. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

8.1 Proposals must meet all the criteria stated in this RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability, and responsibility.

8.2 The Government will evaluate each proposal independently from other proposals using only the RFP evaluation criteria.

9. EXCEPTIONS.

9.1 Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

10. RESTRICTIONS.

10.1 Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

11. PRICE.

11.1 Price analysis will be performed to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the task order at the price proposed.

The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is realistic and consistent with the requirements of the RFP, to include limitations of the specified CCL, if any, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the offeror.

Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government

Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool will be utilized as necessary in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unbalanced or unreasonable, to include offers deemed to be unreasonably low, will be rendered ineligible for award. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation.

The otherwise technically-acceptable, lowest-priced offeror may be required to confirm its price on either a, CLIN, element, or total price basis, and/or provide additional information in support of their price, prior to contract award at the Government’s request and discretion.

12. BASIS FOR AWARD.

12.1 Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of technically acceptable proposals.

(End of Summary of Changes)