W912PM20R0029-0001 FB SATOC.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

A. Corrected email for electronic submission from "SAW-CT-Military Proposals@usace.army.mil" to "SAW-CT-MilitaryProposals@usace.army.mil". The space betw een 'Military' and 'Proposals' is removed.

B. See attached conformed specif ications and Technical of Summary Changes.

C. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////NOTHING FOLLOWS/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Oct-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 W912PM20R0029

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Sep-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

08-Oct-2020

CODE

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON

69 DARLINGTON AVE.

WILMINGTON NC 28403

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PM20R0029

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The below Table of Contents has been added

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Conformed Specifications 258 07-OCT-2020

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS & PROPOSAL FORMAT

1. OVERVIEW

1.1. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) under which task orders for Design/Build, General Construction, and/or Renovation Type Projects are expected to be issued with work at FORT BRAGG, NC. This RFP is a 100% HUBZone Certified Small Business set-aside. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and may be either of a Construction or Design/Build nature. A project requiring use of civil funds is not authorized under this contract.

1.2. The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure 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 Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract, and task orders issued there under, the proposal 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 and task orders issued thereafter.

1.3. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two (2) Phase Design Build Process.

This will result in a target of two (2) awards based on Best Value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The contract is for five (5) years. The total estimated value for the contract will not exceed $49,000,000.00, $24,500,000.00 per SATOC holder. Projects will vary in size, but will not exceed $4,000,000.00.

1.4. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested Offerors will submit specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.5. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select up to five (5) of the highest rated Offerors to participate in Phase 2.

1.6. In Phase 2 of this process, the Government will evaluate both technical capability and price proposals.

1.7. Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Wilmington District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase 2 of this solicitation will be invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal. The Government intends to announce the names of Offerors selected for Phase 2 in the

Beta.Sam.gov website. An Offeror that does not want this information released must provide a written notification and explanation of its objections to release of the information. Those Offerors selected for Phase 2 will be provided the technical requirements package for a Seed Task Order that may be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for performance of this contract, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A design firm or construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. All executed teaming arrangements shall be submitted under Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab D.

2.2. Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab D.

2.3. Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether an affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default. Successor entities shall clearly demonstrate in their proposal the official legal means performed to transform the former Predecessor Company to its 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. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab D.

“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).

Note: The term “successor” does not include new offices/divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.

2.4. Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Block 7 of Standard Form 1442.

2.5. Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

3.1. Title 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. Electronic Submission. All Offerors must submit both a Price Proposal and a Technical Proposal via email to the Wilmington District Contracting Division at:

***AMENDMENT 0001***

SAW-CT-MilitaryProposals@usace.army.mil. Ensure the solicitation number is included in the subject line of the email. Note that attachments exceeding 15 MB may not be accepted by the email server. 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 a 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. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II, for both phases. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II), for each phase. These two files should be named in a specific format:

Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e. W912PM-20-R- 0004_COMPANY_VolumeI.pdf). Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal and may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined ineligible for award.

3.4. Submission Acceptance. The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt by the email server (time stamped by the system), not by the date and time the offeror submits the proposal through their email account. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or more in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is sent minutes before the deadline, but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ email inbox 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 as identified herein. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3.5. Number of Copies. Offerors shall submit one (1) copy of Volume I and one (1) copy of Volume II, for both phases.

4. EXCEPTIONS. 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.

5. RESTRICTIONS. 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.

6. PHASE 1 – PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase 1 proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – 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 B – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications.

TAB C – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 6 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address 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 (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D – Teaming Agreements and Narratives, if applicable. See paragraph 2.2 and 2.3.

TAB E –Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount. The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond under Phase I (will be required for Phase II) but is required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable. Contractors MUST have a minimum bonding capability of $2,000,000.00 single and $14.9M aggregate.

VOLUME II

TAB D –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB F– FACTOR 1; SUB-FACTOR 1: Past Experience

TAB G – FACTOR 1; SUB-FACTOR 2: Design Experience

TAB H – FACTOR 1; SUB-FACTOR 3: Technical Approach

TAB I – FACTOR 2: Past Performance

7. PHASE 2 – PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase 2 proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – 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.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00— Schedule A, Bid Schedule & Schedule B, Seed Task Order Pricing.

TAB C – Bid Bond – The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable. FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a Bid Bond will be required for each task order.

VOLUME II

TAB D – Technical Solution (Seed Project)

TAB E – Proposed Project Summary Schedule (Seed Project)

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1. PHASE 1 – VOLUME II, TAB F – FACTOR 1 – T ECHNICAL SUB-FACTOR 1 – PAST

EXPERIENCE (CONSTRUCTION)

1.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

1.1.1. The Offeror shall demonstrate recent and relevant experience on projects that are similar in nature, magnitude and complexity to the work described in this solicitation, using the Experience Information Form in Attachment 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. If the same poject is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Experience Information Form for construction and design (See sub-factor 2). 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 (i.e. Experience Information Form) shall not exceed FOUR (4) pages.

1.1.2. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) projects for consideration. At a minimum, two (2) of the projects submitted shall be design-build.

1.1.3. Relevant experience is defined as a design-build or general construction project in government, commercial or industrial facilities for new construction, renovation, repair, and expansion related to interior and exterior architectural features that included incidental work related to mechanical, electrical, structural or other civil features such as drainage structures, culverts, earthwork and levees. Relevant projects are further defined as having a contract value of greater than $250,000.00. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the proposal.

1.1.4. Recent experience is defined as projects that are 100% designed and at least 75% construction complete and no longer than eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If a project is presented and has not been completed, the offeror shall explain which elements of the work are not complete and the completion percentage. Construction experience percentage is different than past performance construction experience and evaluated separately.

1.1.5. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the individual entities that make up the joint venture. Projects performed by a JV (other than the offeror) may be submitted by the individual entities that make up a joint venture, provided the aspects of performance under that project are clearly defined. Projects performed under a JV (unless the JV is the offeror) and that do not clearly define the aspects of work performed by that JV partner may not be considered relevant, and therefore, not evaluated as a qualifying project.

1.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor as identified in paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. Projects that were awarded on an individual task/delivery order basis will not be combined/aggregated for the purposes of meeting the minimum requirements. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

1.2.2. To be considered eligible for consideration for Phase 2 of this solicitation, the Government will verify that each offeror has submitted a minimum of three (3) projects which meet the minimum criteria of paragraphs

1.1.3 and 1.1.4.

1.2.3. Additional consideration will be given for: 1. Construction projects which are similar in function, scope, complexity and size to this solicitation and clearly demonstrate the offeror’s abilities to execute the projects successfully; 2. Projects where the contractor has previously worked with the proposed Designer; 3.

Projects that demonstrate experience in the design-build (DB) process; and 4. Projects valued at greater than $1,500,000.00 and contained multiple disciplines of work (e.g. mechanical, structural, electrical, etc.).

1.2.4. Construction experience ratings:

2. PHASE 1 – VOLUME II, TAB G – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL SUB-FACTOR 2 – PAST

EXPERIENCE (DESIGN)

2.1. SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS.

2.1.1. The Offeror’s Designer shall demonstrate its capability to perform design work as might be required under this contract using the Standard Form 330 (SF330). The Offeror is required to complete ALL sections of Part I and Part II of the SF330. Directions for the Standard Form 330 can be found at Attachment 4. The Government will evaluate the completed SF330.

2.1.2. Staffing and Professional Qualifications. In Section E of the SF330, provide professional qualifications (appropriate education, experience and professional registration).

At a minimum, Offerors must provide:

a. Architect (required)

b. Civil Engineer (required)

c. Mechanical Engineer (required)

d. Electrical Engineer (required)

e. Structural Engineer (required)

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

Green 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.

Yellow 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.

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

Offeror should also provide:

a. Topographic Surveyor and Crew

b. Fire Protection Engineer

2.1.3. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. Offerors must submit project examples demonstrating experience and technical competence in the design of projects meeting the construction dollar value and type of work criteria specified in paragraph 1.1.3. No more than eight (8) total project examples may be submitted for the entire A-E team, even if the proposed Architect-Engineer Firm represents the combining of two or more companies. If an Offeror submits more than eight (8) total project examples, only the first eight (8) projects will be evaluated. Projects must be at least 50% design progress completed or successfully completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects shall be identified in Section F of the SF330.

2.1.4. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value in 1.1.3.

2.1.5. Design Standards and Practices. The Architect-Engineer Firm must submit a narrative, using Section H of the SF330. Section H of the SF330 shall not exceed two (2) pages. The Offeror shall use this two (2) page narrative to explain the firm’s capability to perform the following:

a. “Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings and Associated Instructions” as outlined in UFC

1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements;

b. Complying with the state building codes and the military base installation design guides;

c. Sealing designs in North Carolina;

d. Attending meetings; performing site visits and surveying at the installations within 48 hours of

Government notification, and;

e. Design deliverable will be in the Autodesk platform.

2.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

2.2.1. Staffing and Professional Qualifications. The Government will evaluate the proposed staffing and qualifications of the staffing. Lack of staffing or qualifications may result in lack of efficiency and delays in accomplishment of work when engineering disciplines must be added to accomplish design. Offerors do not have to include all of the disciplines in 2.1.2, except those that are identified as required; however, Offerors that provide all of the disciplines may be more highly rated.

2.2.2. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. The Government will evaluate all information available to determine depth of experience and competence. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals if the points of contacts are not available. To receive an “acceptable” rating, all of the disciplines listed in 2.1.2 must have 5 years of experience. Any years of experience less than 5 years will result in a lesser rating and any years of experience more than 5 years will result in a higher rating.

2.2.3. Design Standards and Practices. Design deliverable will be in the Autodesk platform.

2.2.4. Design Experience Ratings:

3. PHASE 1 – VOLUME II, TAB H – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL SUB-FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL

APPROACH

3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.1.1 The Offeror shall provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the design-build contract per the detailed requirements herein. Concisely and clearly, describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution using the following format.

3.1.2 Organization: Describe what firms and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Identify the design firm chosen, if not to be self-performed. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities to be performed throughout the life of the contract. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firm, using the format in (Attachment 5).

Include an organizational chart illustrating the organization, including key positions, their firm affiliation, the title of the position and its function within the organization. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and delegations of authority will function within the team/organization.

3.1.3 All designers of record (DOR) must be registered in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-25 – Requirements for Registration of Designers.

3.1.4 Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track the evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews and approvals, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-builts and completion documentation. In addition to the required designer-of-

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and record (DOR) roles specified within the RFP for maintaining integrity of the design, describe any other DOR involvement in the quality control process, if any. Do not submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s minimum quality control system requirements.

3.1.5 Submission of sub-factor 3 shall be in no less than 10 point, Times New Roman (or similar) font, formatted on 8.5 x 11 in document, standard one (1) inch margins and single spaced. The submission shall not exceed five (5) pages in length. Pages shall be single sided. Any submission that exceeds the defined requirements herein may result in this sub-factor being removed from consideration and unevaluated. If more than five (5) single sided pages are submitted, only the first five (5) pages will be evaluated, provided they meet the other defined requirements.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the design-build process (and the requirements described in the Division 01 requirements of this solicitation) and the capability to execute the work.

3.2.2 The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to a design firm to achieve an ‘acceptable’ rating. Joint Venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

3.2.3 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the quality control approach and understanding of the process. It will further evaluate the clarity, strength and level of detail provided and the logic of the process described within the submission.

3.2.4 Technical Approach ratings:

4. PHASE 1 – VOLUME II, TAB I – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and

4.2. The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) and the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) at the end of this section. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the offeror or its construction team members to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request, submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact (Contract Specialist), Robert Law. Request may be made via email to robert.n.law@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance no later than five (5) business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be emailed to SAW-CT-MlitaryProposals@usace.army.mil e-mail address. If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror’s name, appropriate solicitation number, or is otherwise incomplete it will not be considered.

4.2.1. Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and shall contain enough information to determine relevancy of a project. Additional project information attached to the PPQ will not be evaluated. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may submit PPQs submitted on other procurements provided they are on the USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form.

4.2.2. In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1. Project name; 2. Team member submitting the project;

3. Contract Number; 4. Contract Value; 5. Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation; 6.

Scheduled completion date; and 7. Indicate if the project was design-bid-build or design build.

4.2.3. The offeror may include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years for only the projects submitted, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Performance recognition documents shall not exceed eight (8) documents for the entire proposal.

4.2.4. Offerors should identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract. 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.

4.2.5. Offeror shall submit projects that have a minimum value of no less than $250,000.00 each and that demonstrate experience similar to the various requirements described in paragraph 1.1.3. Projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy. Please note that projects submitted by design firms will not be evaluated in this sub-factor. Design firms shall submit projects in accordance with the requirements in Sub-Factor 2.

Past performance percentage is different than “Past Experience” and will be evaluated separately.

4.2.6. Offerors shall submit no more than eight (8) PPQs (Attachment 3). Project information shall be limited to the PPQ. Additional project information attached to the PPQ will not be evaluated. Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the instant task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror represents the combining of two (2) or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement as defined in Section 00 21 16 paragraph 2.2, no more than eight (8) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. If an Offeror submits more than eight (8) total project examples, only the first eight (8) will be evaluated.

Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

4.2.7. 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.

4.2.8.While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.2.9. The experience and/or past performance of individuals will NOT be considered under this sub-factor.

4.3. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.3.1. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance and experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.3.2. Relevancy Evaluation: Projects that meet the criteria in 1.1.3 will be evaluated to determine how relevant the projects are compared to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. Aspects of relevant projects include similarity of scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the Offeror.

4.3.3. Offerors may increase the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) level of confidence by demonstrating

Previous Teaming between Prime and Major Construction Subcontractors or Previous Teaming between Prime and Prime AE Firm. This experience may be deemed more highly favorable.

4.3.4. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if the role of the offeror or team member on submitted projects is similar to or more significant than the role the offeror or team member is expected to perform on this contract. This experience may be deemed more highly favorable.

4.3.5. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value in 1.1.3.

4.3.6. Each project submitted by the offeror and other sources (as defined in 4.3.11) will receive a relevancy rating (as defined in 4.3.7) and a performance confidence rating (as defined in 4.3.14). These ratings will then be combined and one final past performance confidence rating will be assigned to each offeror using the ratings in 4.3.14.

4.3.7. Relevancy. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the following table. With respect to relevancy, 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.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition 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.

4.3.8. Confidence Assessment. The past performance and experience record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects.

4.3.9.The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.3.10. 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. The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member. However, the consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning team members other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles. Past performance information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the projects submitted or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required may not be considered. Further, the consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning team members other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of the proposed involvement of the team member in the performance of this contract. If it is not clear that the team member will not perform a significant role in the performance of this contract, past performance information for that team member may be given less consideration and weight. 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 affecting the determination of relevancy and the usefulness of the information in determining a confidence rating despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

4.3.11. Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance and experience information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

4.3.12. The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance relevancy and performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 4.3.14.

4.3.13. If 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 this sub-factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

4.3.14. Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

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 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.

5. PHASE 1 – RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

5.1. NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL. This factor is equal in importance to Factor 2.

FACTOR 1 – SUB-FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is more important than Sub-Factor 2 and equally important to Sub-Factor 3.

FACTOR 1 – SUB-FACTOR 2: DESIGN EXPERIENCE. This factor is less important than Sub- Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 2.

FACTOR 1 – SUB-FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH. This factor is more important than

Sub-Factor 2 and equally important to Sub-Factor 1.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is equal in importance to Factor 1.

6. PHASE 1 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION

6.1. 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 documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

6.2. Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the Phase 1 proposal.

Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor.

Comments are required for all ratings.

6.3. The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the

Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation.

6.4. No proposal which receives an overall rating of Unsatisfactory or Marginal will be selected to participate in Phase 2 regardless of the total number of proposals received.

6.5. 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 their performance capability and qualifications. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

7. PHASE 2 – DO NOT SUBMIT PHASE 2 WITH PHASE 1

7.1. NOTES:

7.1.1. PHASE 2 IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER PHASE 1 (INITIAL PROPOSAL). PHASE 2 IS ONLY FOR

THE OFFERORS SHORT LISTED ON PHASE 1. THE OFFERORS WHO ARE SHORT LISTED

UNDER PHASE 1 WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO SUBMIT

PROPOSALS FOR PHASE 2.

7.1.2. PHASE 2 CRITERIA MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE/NOTIFICATION

OF THE PHASE 2 SOLICITATION.

8. PHASE 2 - OVERVIEW

8.1. Overview: Those Offerors short-listed in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal, as indicated below. The Phase 2 evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government will evaluate the proposals for Phase 2 based on the Tradeoff process, developed in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1

9. PHASE 1 – VOLUME II, TAB I – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL SOLUTION

9.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

9.1.1. PART 1: The Offeror will submit a quantitative proposal for the seed project utilizing the R.S. Means base cost data books listed in Section 01 00 04: Delivery Order Procedures. Offerors’ final proposed price will be submitted on Schedule B (see Phase 2 – Price); however, the offeror is required to submit the same proposal breakout with the prices omitted. Offerors shall provide ALL supporting documents (R.S. Means Break Out, etc) with the prices omitted. Offeror’s proposal shall be prepared in accordance with the RFP and meet the requirements as stated in the SATOC scope of work and Seed Project scope of work.

9.1.2.PART 2: Proposed Summary Schedule: Offerors shall submit a preliminary summary level schedule for integrated design and construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled with the appropriate tab designation. Proposed schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. Provide a narrative, describing the design and construction packaging plans.