W912QR20R0003-0001.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 W912QR20R0003 for the Crane SUBBEC Bldg. 3287 Interior Laboratory Renovations at Crane, IN is hereby amended as follow s:

SEE AMDT 0001 SUMMARY OF CHANGES.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 85

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 W912QR20R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Mar-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 X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

13-Apr-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:

W912QR20R0003-0001

W912QR20R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

AMDT 0001 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

A. Electronic proposal submission instructions have been incorporated herein and must be adhered to.

B. The Pre-Bid Site Visit Roster is attached herein.

C. The Period of Performance has been revised from 315 calendar days to 475 calendar days after issuance of Notice to Proceed. FAR Clause 52.211-10 has been revised and replaced herein.

D. Wage Determinations IN20200006 & IN20200008, Modification 2, dated 03 April 2020, are hereby incorporated and must be adhered to.

E. Section 00 22 12, Evaluation Criteria, has been revised and replaced in its entirety. A Schedule Narrative has been included as a Subfactor under the Technical Approach factor.

F. The following SPECIFICATION SECTION has been added in its entirety:

SECTION 21 13 13.00 10 – Wet Pipe Sprinkler System, Fire Protetion

G. The following SPECIFICATION SECTION has been replaced in its entirety

Project Table of Contents

H. The following PLAN SHEETS have been revised and replaced in their entirety:

G-002 – Drawing Index G-003 – Phasing Plan SD-110 – Floor Slab Plan - Demolition S-110 – Floor Slab Plan – New Work AD130 – Partial Roof Plan - Demolition AD130a – Partial Roof Plan – Demolition - Option A-111 – Partial Floor Plan A- 130 – Partial Roof Plan – New Work A-130a – Partial Roof Plan – New Work- Option A-570 – Roof Details A-580 – Miscellaneious Details A-610 – Finish Schedule PP111 – Partial Floor Plan MD130 – Partial Roof Plan – HVAC Demolition Base Bid MD131 – Partial Roof Plan – HVAC Demolition Option 1

I. The following AS-BUILTS have been added in their entirety:

B3287 East As-Builts B3287 West As-Builts

J. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

K. The proposal due date has been extended to 23 April 2020 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time (ET).

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Apr-2020 02:00 PM to 23-Apr-2020 02:00 PM.

The contractor period of performance end date has increased by 160 days from 315 days to 475 days.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION INSTR.

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email.

Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed five (5) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. Marcel Hull, Contract Specialist at Marcel.D.Hull@usace.army.mil

b. Bjorn Hale, Contracting Officer at bjorn.t.hale2@usace.army.mil

2. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two

(2) business days prior to the proposal due date.

3. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter

W912QR20R0003-FIRMNAME

4. Click Upload button to send documents.

5. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. (Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required).

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912QR20R0003-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

W912QR20R0003-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description.

Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e), which is found in 00 21 00 Instructions of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984)

The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 10 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 475 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.

(End of clause)

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Interior Laboratory Renovations of Bldg. 3287 at Crane, IN. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 The proposed project is approximately 5,000 SF interior laboratory renovations of Bldg. 3287 at NSWC, Crane, IN. The project also includes installation of new transformer and switch gear, both AC and DC power installation requirements, DC power configuration using copper bus bar, replacement of (2) chilled water RTU and subsequent ductwork, replacement of concrete flooring with new, and trenching for copper bus bar.

1.3 The basis of award is the Best Value Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable in price, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.4 The target ceiling for contract award is $4,000,000.00 based on funds mad available for this project for the base plus all options. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

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 past performance and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. 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, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Place, Room 821, Louisville, KY 40202-2267 no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.3 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 in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted in a Three-Ring binder and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach o Sub-factor A: Management Plan o Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative

NOTE: Volume I shall be submitted in original and seven (7) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted in a Three-Ring binder (placed in a separate envelope) and 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 & Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Volume II shall be submitted in original and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

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. Technical proposals (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered.

The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is 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 Best Value Trade-Off, as stated in paragraph 1.3 above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, 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 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 proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor

I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 & 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Management Plan will be rated using Table 3 below.

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

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 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 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. NOTE: a proposal that has an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor II is unawardable.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach 2nd

Sub-factor A: Management Plan Equal to Sub-factor B

Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative Equal to Sub-factor A

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated and Price Breakout Schedule

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding Not Rated and Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings:

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

Table 1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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

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

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

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

Table 2 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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Table 3

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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 offerors’ 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 offerors’ 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: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor Experience:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope as defined in paragraph 5.1.2 below. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in scope to this requirement include:

Renovation of laboratory and manufacturing type areas to include: repair and replacement of HVAC systems, replacement of (2) chilled water RTU and subsequent ductwork, and replacement of concrete flooring with new and trenching for copper bus bar.

Projects considered similar in size to this requirement include:

Projects with renovation of approximately 5,000 SF or greater.

5.1.3 Formats for Prime and Electrical Experience are included for your use. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

NOTE: Criteria for a project to be considered similar in scope to the solicited requirement is listed above.

The criteria may be satisfied by the Prime Contractor or a key Subcontractor. If the Prime Contractor will self-perform the electrical portion of this project, the Prime Contractor may submit up to three (3) projects to demonstrate its electrical experience, in addition to the projects submitted under paragraph 5.1.2. If a Subcontractor is submitted to satisfy the criteria below they must be utilized for that action during the construction duration. Replacement of a key Subcontractor may be allowed if the new Subcontractor is deemed equal or greater to the one previously evaluated, and must be approved and accepted by the Contracting Officer.

NOTE: New construction will be considered less relevant with regards to similar in size or scope to this requirement.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Additional consideration may be given for projects that demonstrate experience with any of the following elements:

a) Overhead High Voltage Electrical Install and Tie-In.

b) Experience installing controls and switches for DC power systems.

c) Previous experience with NAVFAC, Navy, USACE or Federal projects.

d) Previous experience working on DoD Laboratory Renovation projects.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete

c) For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

d) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility

e) Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both

f) Portion and percentage of work that was self-performed

5.1.7 For both Prime Contractor and Electrical Experience, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective action.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed three (3).

5.1.8 Electrical Experience:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the entity that will be performing the electrical work (subcontractor or prime contractor) within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in scope as defined in paragraph 5.1.9 below.

Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. Projects considered similar in scope to this requirement include:

5.1.9 Projects considered similar in scope to this requirement include:

Installation of new pad mount medium voltage transformer and switch gear to include both AC and DC power installation requirements and DC power configuration using copper bus bar.

NOTE: If the Prime Contractor will self-perform the electrical portion of this project, the Prime Contractor must demonstrate electrical experience that meets all of the requirements of this paragraph.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size and magnitude of effort, and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Table 1), above.

5.2.2 The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance

Confidence Assessment (Table 2) above. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The past performance confidence assessment rating will incorporate all information available for both the Prime Contractor, as well as the entity performing the electrical portion of the project.

6. Volume I – Factor II – Sub-factor A: Management Plan

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a management plan narrative for the 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:

Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating risk during contract performance.

Describe your process for managing, coordinating, and tracking changes that arise during construction.

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.

Discuss how you will sequence the project and accommodate the facility occupants (life safety, utilities, etc.)

Describe how your labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the project.

Discuss how you intend to coordinate and minimize needed outages.

NOTE: There is a limit of ten (10) single-sided (front and back will count as two pages), 8.5” x 11” pages, for the Management Plan (including organizational chart) using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin size of one-half inch on all sides. Offerors may substitute one (1) page size of 11” x 17” for the Organizational Chart, however, this will count as two (2) pages towards the overall page limit of ten (10). Format restrictions will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Any information beyond this page limit will not be evaluated.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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 I – Factor II – Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative

7.1 Submission Requirements

7.1.1 Based on the project budget and scope, provide a schedule narrative describing the construction sequence/process for successful completion of the project (Construction, Commissioning, and Close-Out) within the duration shown in FAR 52.211-10. At a minimum, the Schedule Narrative shall address the timing and process(es) necessary to complete the key activities indicated below:

Pre-Construction Submittals and Government Review Long Lead Items Phasing Plan Utility Coordination Equipment Installation Commissioning Activities and Critical Submittals Project Closeout Planning and Coordination (including Red Zone Meeting) As-Builts

NOTE: There is a page limit of six (6) 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 this Sub-factor.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified in paragraph 7.1.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the key activities and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the solicited project within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

Additional consideration may be given for a proposed shorter duration that is realistic and achievable. The Government reserves the right to accept or decline a proposed shorter duration as part of the contract award. Should the Government accept the proposed shorter duration, the contract completion stated in 52.211-10 will be replaced with the offeror’s proposed completion duration. If the proposed duration is not realistic and achievable, the duration will revert back to the schedule shown in 52.211-10.

NOTE: The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule using calendar days, not dates.

8. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information (Submit in a separate envelope).

8.1 Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

8.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and section 00 10 00, Price Breakout Schedule.

Both of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will review the SF 1442 for proper signatures. This information will not be rated. The price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. The price will be evaluated by the SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

8.2 Tab B: Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSBC, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture 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.

8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will not be rated, but Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

8.3 Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability

8.3.1 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 the offeror’s banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing the offeror's ability to be bonded for this project.

Include the name, address and telephone number of the offeror’s bonding company.

8.3.2 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.

8.4 Tab D: Pre-Award Information

8.4.1 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 each joint venture member.

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier for any and all key subcontractors identified in the proposal.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance

E VG S M U N

with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION 00 70 00 - CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

The following have been modified:

WAGE DETERMINATION IN2020006

General Decision Number: IN20200006 04/03/2020

Superseded General Decision Number: IN20190006

State: Indiana

Construction Types: Heavy and Highway

Counties: Adams, Allen, Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, Decatur, DeKalb, Delaware, Dubois, Elkhart, Fayette, Floyd, Fountain, Franklin, Fulton, Gibson, Grant, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Harrison, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Huntington, Jackson, Jasper, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Kosciusko, Lagrange, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Martin, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Parke,…