W912QR19R0009-0004.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

Solicitation W912QR19R0009 for the IDIQ Design Build and Design Bid Build Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) to support the military construction (MILCON) and operations and maintenance (O&M) funded construction requirements for U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve nationw ide programs in the Northeast Region is hereby amended as follow s:

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

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 W912QR19R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-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 1 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

28-Dec-2020

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE

600 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PLACE

ROOM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2239

W912QR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR19R0009-0004

W912QR19R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004 - 00 22 18

General Information:

1. The due date and time for Phase II proposal submission remains 1400 HRS EST on Tuesday, 12 January 2021.

Section 00 22 18:

2. The section 00 22 18 – Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II is hereby replaced in its entirety.

Specifically, the references to ASHRAE and LEED Silver have been deleted from Paragraph 5.1.2, Sub- Factor 2 – Design Narrative, and are no longer a requirement of the Phase II proposal submission.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 18

SECTION 00 22 18

Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select up to seven (7) contractors for Firm Fixed Price Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) for primarily Design and Construction (D/B) projects within the Louisville District Area of Responsibility to support the U.S. Army Reserves, U.S. Air Force Reserves, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army programs.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 18 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a sample project and binding contract rates. No seed task order will be awarded as a result of this solicitation.

Only the base MATOCs will be awarded. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process.

Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award up to seven (7) contracts to the responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines conform to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers. For Phase II submittals, requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

1.3 The sample project has an estimated cost range between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

NOTE: The rating information from Phase I will not be considered in Phase II or in the final selection.

2. Submittal of Offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. For Phase II, requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums.

Innovative, creative, or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers electronically as outlined in Section 00 21 00.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design/build project. For Phase II, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase II shall include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Design/Technical o Sub factor 1 – Design Drawings o Sub factor 2 – Design Narrative

• Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach

*NOTE: The complete Volume I shall be submitted electronically as outlined in Section 00 21 00.

2.5 Volume II for Phase II shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements

• Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Volume II shall be submitted electronically as outlined in Section 00 21 00.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase II essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance / Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Phase II Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I and Factor II will be rated using Tables 5 and 6 below. The SSEB will assign an adjectival descriptor to the Technical Factors and corresponding Sub-factors (if any). The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 5) and risk descriptions (see Table 6) below.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase II proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 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.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Design/Technical 1st

Sub-factor 1 – Design Drawings Equal to Sub-factor 2 Sub-factor 2 – Design Narrative Equal to Sub-factor 1

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach 2nd

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information Not Rated

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Not Rated Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of

Financial Ability Not Rated

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 5

Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings Adjectival

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 the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 6

Technical Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

4.6 Definitions

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

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

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

5. Volume I – Factor I: Design/Technical

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Sub factor 1 – Design Drawings:

Provide design drawings for the sample project.

Submit ANSI D half size scalable to fit 11” x 17” sheets. The proposed design drawings shall provide the information as follows:

BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS

Include the following:

• Color Rendering

• Floor Plans

• Color Exterior Elevations (show all sides) with materials identified o NOTE: Show large penetrations and features associated with the systems

• Color Site Plan with all features

NOTE: There is a limit of 15 (fifteen) drawings for the Design Drawings sub factor using 11” x 17” sheets.

All information must be clearly legible. Any information that is not clearly legible may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

5.1.2 Sub factor 2 – Design Narrative:

Provide a clear and concise narrative describing the sample project, while specifically addressing the following site and building features:

• Architectural including Roofing System

• Mechanical

• Structural

• Site Work / Utility Connections & Routing

• AT/FP

NOTE: There is a limit of ten (10) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Design Narrative sub factor.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 Sub factor 1 – Design Drawings:

Design Drawings will be reviewed for thoroughness, functionality, quality of materials, and an understanding of the project requirements. Drawings that exceed the minimum requirements or offer building system preferences listed in Section 01 02 00.00 48, Statement of Work, may receive additional consideration.

5.2.2 Sub factor 2 – Design Narrative:

The Design Narrative will be evaluated for completeness and thoroughness by including the building features of the RFP as outlined in Section 01 02 00.00 48, Statement of Work. Proposals that offer building system preferences or demonstrate a complete understanding of the project requirements in Section 01 02

00.00 48, Statement of Work, may receive additional consideration.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a management plan narrative for the sample project that describes how your labor, resources, designers, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the Management Plan shall include the following information:

• Describe the duties of the key project delivery staff and how this team will work together to deliver the project, both during the design and construction phases.

• A commissioning plan to include an outline of systems to be commissioned, commissioning timeline, and documents to be provided.

Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management, and the responsible chain of command. JV offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the narrative portion of this factor.

NOTE: There is a page limit of one (1) single sided, 11” x 17” page, for the organizational chart portion of this factor. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be evaluated.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 Management Plan

Management Plan narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for successfully managing the solicited project.

7. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442, the Price Breakout Schedule – MATOC, and the Price Breakout Schedule – Sample Project. Each of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The total evaluated price will be determined by multiplying the hourly rate proposed for each discipline by the estimated number of hours for each discipline found in the Price Breakout Schedule - MATOC, and adding the total estimated prices for all disciplines together to reach a total estimated MATOC price. The total estimated MATOC price will then be added to the total sample project price to calculate the total evaluated price. All proposed prices and rates will be evaluated by the SSEB and the Contracting Officer/SSA for fair and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

(End of Summary of Changes)