W912QR20R0009-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Solicitation W912QR20R0009 for the Repairs to the HTHW Line C (Area A) at WPAFB, OH is hereby modified as follow s:

a. See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 87

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 W912QR20R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Dec-2019

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.

U0002

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

31-Jan-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:

W912QR20R0009-0002

W912QR20R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Summary of changes Amendment 0002 Repairs to the HTHW Line C (Area A) at WPAFB, OH

1. Section 00112 – Amended section 5.1 to change the relevancy timeframe of projects from 5 years to 10.

2. The following Wage Rates have been replaced in their entirety:

a. Wage Decision OH20200001

b. Wage Decision OH20200081

3. The following PLAN SHEETS have been replaced in their entirety:

0C-206 SITE / UTILITY PLAN VQ-BLDG

1A-101 STAND-ALONE MECHANICAL BUILDING 10840 FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1S-101 BUILDING 10840 RENOVATION PLAN

1S-501 FOUNDATION DETAIL

2A-105 BUIDING 10271 - FLOOR PLAN MEZZANINE

3A-101 BUILDING 10280 FIRST FLOOR AND MECHANICAL ROOM 1324 FLOOR PLANS

4A-111 MECHANICAL ROOMS W100 AND E100 FLOOR PLANS

4A-116 PARTIAL REFLECTED CEILING PLANS

4A-401 BUILDING 10853 MECHANICAL ROOMS E100 SECTION AND ELEVATIONS

5A-102 BUILDING 10825 BASEMENT PLAN

4. The following SPECIFICATION SECTION has been replaced in their entirety:

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. The following SPECIFICATION SECTIONS have been deleted in their entirety:

05 51 00 METAL STAIRS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

08 33 23 OVERHEAD COILING DOORS

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00112

SECTION 00112 - PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the abandonment of High Temperature Hot Water Line C and the installation of new boilers and supporting infrastructure for the Hospital, Visitor’s Quarters, AFMC Headquarters, and Tenant Unit Facilities. 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 basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable 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.

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 RFP are minimums.

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 made up of the Past Performance, Technical Plan (Management Plan and Risk Management Plan) factors, and the Small Business Participation Plan along with Price and Pro Forma information. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume I shall be submitted in original and six (6) paper copies and one electronic copy on CD*. Volume II shall be submitted in original and 1 CD* only and shall be placed in a separate envelope. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

2.4 The target ceiling for contract award is $13,000,000 based on funds made available for this project. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc.

on CD (one copy). Provide the complete Volume II proposal submittal on CD (one copy) with the final price breakout schedule, if available, electronically. The paper copy 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.

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/quality proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not 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 the Best Value Tradeoff Process.

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

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Some factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and confidence.

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 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 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and subfactors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to cost or 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, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance (Three-Ring Binder) 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Plan (Three-Ring Binder) 2nd

Subfactor A Management Plan 2nd

Subfactor B Risk Management Plan 1st

4.4 Volume I- Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan 3rd

4.5 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Sealed Envelope)

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

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

Tab D Subcontracting Plan Not Rated

Tab E Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.6 Ratings

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

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

Management Plan & Risk Management Plan Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Small Business Participation Plan

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.7 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 from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

5.0 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last 10 years from the solicitation issue date which are similar to this project in size and scope.

Projects considered to be substantially complete are projects that are at least 95% complete.

Projects considered similar to this project include projects with both new construction and renovation in areas utilizing gas-fired boilers with direct digital control, piping, metering, and correction to existing facilities heating systems. The construction and/or renovation must include the installation and removal of boilers.

Projects considered similar in size to the solicited project are projects with a single boiler size of at least 10,000 MBTU (Note: Multiple Boilers may NOT be combined to meet the similar in size requirement).

The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

An 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.

Formats for Project Details 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.

Please note in the proposal if projects submitted have the following additional features. Additional consideration may be given if projects submitted have the following features: Previous experience with:

USACE or Air Force Phased projects A single project with multiple sites Projects that include SCIF or ICD 705 Compliant spaces

Provide two references for all of the projects identified in paragraph 5.1. Reference information must include project name, location, owner's name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. 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.

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 DUNS number with the Joint Ventures’ proposal. Projects performed by other contractors 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).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Additional consideration may be given for projects completed for the USACE or Air Force, Phased projects, A single project with multiple sites, Projects that include SCIF, or ICD 705 Compliant spaces.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references.

The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPPIS, Unique Entity Identifier (Dun & Bradstreet), or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II – Subfactor A - Management Plan

6.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan for the project that describes the following:

1. How your labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the project at all sites within the period of performance.

2. How you will manage, supervise and coordinate the subcontractors' work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination.

3. Discuss the qualifications of your on-site team (e.g., degrees, registrations, and number of years of experience). Resumes are not required, but may be submitted to demonstrate team member qualifications.

4. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. Joint venture offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart. Quality Control and Safety must be included in the chart.

There is a page limit of ten (10) single-sided pages (front and back will count as two pages) for the Management Plan factor (excluding the Organizational Chart). The narrative should use a minimum font size of eleven (11). Page size shall be 8.5”x11” with a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides. The Organizational Chart can be submitted on one 11”x17” page or one 8.5”x11” page. Format restrictions will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Any information that exceeds this page limit will not be evaluated.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Comprehensive plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work will be regarded as having met the RFP requirements.

Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work or that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources will be regarded as having not met the RFP requirements. Plans will be evaluated based on the level of involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors. The SSEB will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the offeror’s narrative describing their ability to manage a successful project.

An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be regarded as having met the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be regarded as having not met the RFP requirements.

7.0 Volume I – Factor II – Subfactor B Risk Management Plan

7.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a Risk Management Plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be managed, supervised and coordinated to reduce risk and ensure successful completion of the project. Minimally, the Risk Management Plan shall address the following information:

Identify and discuss significant areas of project-specific technical risks and provide your plan for mitigating risk during contract performance.

Provide your mechanical firm(s) and specialist(s) qualifications and years of experience.

Include an outline of systems to be construct and commissioned or activities to be performed, and documents to be provided for this project, and a plan to mitigate risk associated with commissioning activities. NOTE: The listed mechanical firm(s) and specialist(s) that is submitted for evaluation under this Factor must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted after award unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

Describe your process for managing, coordinating and tracking changes that arise during the construction phase(s) and your plan to mitigate risks related to change management.

Provide a detailed schedule showing approach considering multiple sites to include each location of work (simultaneous/phased efforts) and show any shutdowns. The schedule shall include a narrative and the work periods for each item listed within the submitted schedule.

Discuss additional resources that are available to mitigate the risk of schedule slippage.

Provide detailed examples of how change management was accomplished for previous projects that are similar in size and scope.

NOTE: There is a limit of twelve (12) single-sided (front and back will count as two pages) for the Risk Management Plan (excluding the Schedule). The narrative should use a minimum font size of eleven (11).

Page size shall be 8.5” x 11” pages with a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides. The Schedule may be submitted on one (1) 11”x17” page or one (1) 8.5”x11” page. Format restrictions will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Any information that exceeds this page limit will not be evaluated.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The offeror’s Risk Management Plan will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the specific work for this project and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. Plans will also be evaluated based on the mechanical firm(s) and specialist(s) qualifications including credentials, experience, and understanding of the project’s commissioning requirements and plans to reduce risk of commissioning issues. (NOTE: The listed mechanical firm(s) and specialist(s) that is submitted for evaluation under this Factor must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted after award unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.) Plans will also be evaluated based on the offeror’s level of understanding of project risks and the approach for minimizing these risks. Plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the specific project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully reducing risk and managing this project to completion may receive additional consideration by the SSEB.

8.0 Volume I- Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan

8.1 Submission Requirements

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort and be required to address each of the following areas individually:

The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HubZone, service disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in %’s for the base year and for each individual option year; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e. teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition;

The realism of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e. aggressive goals.

The Small Business Participation Plan shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor : __________________ %

(3) Percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

% of Total Contract Value

Large % Total Small % Small Non-Disadvantaged % Small Disadvantaged % Small Woman Owned % Small HUB Zone % Small Veteran Owned % Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned %

Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments.

NOTE: The sum of the percentages of Small Non-Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small; however, the sum of all of the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

(4) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Name of Company

Type of Service/Supply

Large Small Non-Disadvantaged Small Disadvantaged Small Woman Owned Small HUB Zone Small Veteran Owned Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

(5) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts.

(6) For Large and Small Businesses provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

(7) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any small business category as defined in FAR Part 19 as subcontractors.

(8) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all of the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219-9. This Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation information required above which applies to both Large and Small Businesses. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection but, rather a requirement for award to a Large Business. The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

8.2. Evaluation Criteria:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN. The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated on the Offeror’s best efforts and the level of small business commitment that is being demonstrated for the proposed acquisition and the prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The Small Business Participation Plan must meet the minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 15% of the total contract value (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business).

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c) the following elements will be considered in evaluating an Offeror’s Participation Plan:

The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in plans;

The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

The realism of the plans;

Past performance of Offerors in complying with the requirements of the Subcontracting Plan Goals for such firms and monetary targets for participation;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the proposed subcontracted value; and The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participations percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

9.0 Volume 2 - Price and Proforma Information (Submit in a separate envelope).

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

9.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

9.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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.

9.2 Tab B – Subcontracting Plan

9.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Large business offerors shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 Alt II. To be acceptable, plans must adequately address the required statutory elements and provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD, Part 2, AFARS 19.705. You may use the attached sample sub-contracting plan as a starting point. Percentage goals apply to the total amount being subcontracted.

9.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Submitted information will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with AFARS 19.705. To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must:

(a) Adequately address the required statutory elements of Part 3 of Appendix DD

(b) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions a. through f. of Appendix DD (AFARS 19.705), a copy of which is attached.

(c) To be acceptable, the contractor must satisfy all objectives in Part 2 of Appendix DD. Failure to receive a subcontracting plan rating of acceptable could jeopardize the offeror’s selection for contract award. If discussions with offerors are necessary, those areas where the plan is deficient will be reviewed with each offeror with the goal of correcting deficiencies.

9.3 Tab C – Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

9.3.1 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.

9.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

9.4 Tab D – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

8.4.1 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 firm's banking institution.

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

Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company.

9.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

9.5 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

9.5.1 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.

d) UEI/CAGE Code for Mechanical Sub-contractors named in Risk Management Plan

9.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Project Detail Sheet

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location/Square Footage____________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed_______________________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Prime Contractor Personnel: ___________________________%

Construction Cost:

At Award: $_______________ Reason for the cost growth:

Final Cost $_______________ ___________________________________

Award Date: ____________

Scheduled Completion: _____________ Reason for the time growth:

Actual Completion: _____________ ___________________________________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number)

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. 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):

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (SAMPLE)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), paragraph 19.708(b)(1)) prescribes the use of the clause at FAR 52.219-9 entitled "Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” The following is a suggested model for use when formulating such subcontracting plan. While this model plan has been designed to be consistent with FAR 52.219-9, other formats of a subcontracting plan may be acceptable. However, failure to include the essential information as exemplified in this model may be cause for either a delay in acceptance or the rejection of a bid or offer where the clause is applicable.

Further, the use of this model is not intended to waive other requirements that may be applicable under FAR 52.219-

9. "SUBCONTRACT," as used in this clause, means any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a federal government prime contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract.

I. IDENTIFICATION DATA:

Company Name:

Address:

Date Prepared: Solicitation Number:

Description:

Estimated Contract Dollar Value:

II. TYPE OF PLAN (circle one)

A. Individual Plan (All elements developed specifically for this contract and applicable for the full term of this contract, including any option periods.)

B. Master Plan (Goals developed for this contract; all other elements standard; must be renewed every three years)

C. Commercial Plan Commercial products/service plan, including goals, covers the offeror’s fiscal year and applies to the entire production of commercial items or delivery of services sold by either the entire company or a portion thereof (e.g., division, plant, or product line); this includes planned subcontracting for both commercial and Government business. In accordance with FAR 19.704(d), “A commercial plan (as defined in FAR 19.701) is the preferred type of subcontracting plan for contractors furnishing commercial items.”(Contractor sells large quantities of off-the-shelf commodities to many Government agencies. Plans/goals negotiated by a lead agency on a company-wide basis rather than for individual contracts. Plan effective only during the year for which it is approved. The contractor must provide a copy of the lead agency approval.)

III. GOALS:

(For information purposes only: FAR 19.704(a)(1) requires separate percentage goals for using Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business concerns as subcontractors; and a statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted to Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business concerns. NOTE: The dollar amounts planned for subcontracting must be expressed as percentages of total subcontracting dollars as shown below.)

State separate dollar and percentage goals, expressed in terms of percentages of total subcontracting dollars, for the use of Large Business, Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, and

Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions concerns as subcontractors. The offeror shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs in the following format. (For a contract with options, provide a separate statement for the basic contract and individual statements for each option year.)

A. BASE BID ONLY: The following percentage goals (expressed in terms of a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars) and dollar amounts are applicable to the contract cited above or to the contract awarded…