W912QR20R0065Specs-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

See Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 44

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 W912QR20R0065

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jul-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 DAT

21-Aug-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:

W912QR20R0065-0001

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:

AMDT 0001 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Summary of changes Amendment 0001 Chiller Repairs at WPAFB

1. Section 00 22 12 – Amended sections 2.2 through 2.6 to allow the receipt of electronic proposals.

2. SF 1442 Block 13 has been updated to reflect a proposal receipt date of 26 August 2020 at 1pm Eastern

3. FAR Clause 52.204-25 (AUG 19) has been replaced with FAR Clause 52.204-25 (AUG 20).

4. FAR Provision 52.204-24 (DEC 19) has been replaced with FAR Provision 52.204-25 (AUG 20).

5. General Decision Number: OH20200081 dated 7/10/2020 has been replaced with General Decision Number: OH20200081 dated 07/31/2020

6. The following SPECIFICATION SECTIONS have been revised and replaced in their entirety:

00 80 00.00 06 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

01 46 00.00 06 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

07 41 63 FABRICATED PANEL ASSEMBLIES

23 05 15 COMMON PIPING FOR HVAC

7. The following SPECIFICATION SECTIONS have been added in their entirety:

32 31 13 CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

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

G-002 General Project Notes G-111 Chemical Treatment Building Layout S-101 Partial Basement Plan – Structural S-111 Cooling Tower Yard Plan – Structural S-501 Details – Structural A-101 Existing Area Well – Demolition and New Work – Architectural P-111 Chemical Treatment Building – Plumbing MD101 Partial Basement Plan – Mechanical – Demolition MD111 Cooling Tower Yard Plan – Mechanical – Demolition MD801 Schematics – Mechanical – Demolition M-101 Partial Basement Plan – Mechanical M-104 Mechanical Room Ingress Plan – Mechanical M-111 Cooling Tower Yard Plan – Mechanical M-801 Schematics – Mechanical ED101 Partial Basement Plan – Electrical – Demolition ED111 Cooling Tower Yard Plan – Electrical – Demolition ED112 Pipe Tunnel Plan – Electrical – Demolition

ED121 Partial Second Floor Plan – Electrical – Demolition ED601 Schedules – Electrical – Demolition ED701 Partial Electrical One-Lines – Demolition ED702 Partial Electrical One-Lines – Demolition E-101B Partial Basement Plan – Power and Systems E-103 Partial Basement Plans – Electrical E-111B Cooling Tower Yard Plan – Power and Systems E-112 Pipe Tunnel Plan – Electrical E-701 Partial Electrical One-Lines

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Aug-2020 01:00 PM to 26-Aug-2020 01:00 PM.

The number of offeror copies required has decreased by 6 from 6 to 0.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 WPAFB Chiller Repairs. 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.

1.2 The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off 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.

1.3 This project is for the repairs to the chillers at WPAFB, OH. The project is to the repair the main chilled water system, which provides primary cooling for the Building 620 Area B complex. Replace the three 1100 Ton Refrigeration (TR) hybrid chillers and pumps with three 1,250 TR variable-flow chillers using low Global Warming Potential (GWP) substance with two remote booster pumps. Replace the three constant-flow condenser water pumps with three condenser water pumps with variable speed drives.

Replace electrical for chiller and pump from their locations to the Motor Control Center (MCC). Provide common header for the chilled water pump system allowing different operational combinations of cooling towers with chillers. Replace chiller controls using a Chilled Manager Control System and complete testing, balancing, and commissioning. Replace the three damaged structural steel framed cooling towers and related system components. Repair damaged reinforced concrete basin walls and piers under the cooling towers. Repair various degraded components in the Chemical Treatment Building 618 Area B. The work will be phased as not all the chillers can be taken offline at once.

2. Submittal of offers.

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

AMENDMENT 0001 *******************************************************************

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Josh Westgate. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

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. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted and shall include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information Volume II – Tab E: Subcontracting Plan

2.6 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 Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed one (1) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. Josh Westgate, Contract Specialist at Joshua.K.Westgate@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 one (1) 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 W912QR20R0065-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:

• W912QR20R0065-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

• W912QR20R0065-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.

*******************************************************************AMENDMENT 0001

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 will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical 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 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 Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 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. Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 4 below.

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

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

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Management Plan 2nd

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 Agreement Not Rated

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

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Tab E Subcontracting Plan Not Rated

4.6 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

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

TABLE 4

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

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:

5.1.1 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. 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 complete all phases of the project (i.e., only punchlist items remain). 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.

NOTE: Do not submit more than three (3) projects. Any projects submitted that exceed the three (3) project limit will not be evaluated.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be the renovation and installation of chilled water system(s), to include installing a minimum of an 1100 ton chiller systems and 1,250 TR airflow system along with their associated system controls.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include construction experience demonstrating the ability to successfully repair and replace chillers, chilled water pumps, condenser water pumps, and electrical supplies. This includes:

Reconfiguring chilled water systems and installing HVAC units;

New refrigerant monitoring system;

Chilled water manager system; and Connecting to privatize utilities.

Performance must demonstrate complex phasing to include multiple chilled water system that feeds into one central plant.

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

5.1.5 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a) Project was for DoD

b) Project includes phasing of occupied buildings.

c) Projects demonstrating an established relationship with the key Mechanical subcontractor identified in the offeror’s Management Plan (or if the offeror is the key mechanical contractor).

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

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

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

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

e) Portion and percentage of work that was self-performed;

f) Two references, including name, telephone number, and email address.

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that 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 respective 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. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates 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 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 (JV) must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV 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 JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

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 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 reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPPIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

5.2.3 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 SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

6.1 Factor II: Management Plan

6.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

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

Describe how you will manage, supervise, and coordinate the subcontractors’ work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination.

Describe the teams’ quality control approach, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction.

Describe your plan for the phasing of the chillers, including how you plan to utilize manpower, procure materials, and how you plan to perform commissioning on each phase.

Describe how you plan to coordinate outages and maintain systems while the work is on-going on the various phases.

Identify key mechanical subcontractors proposed for the work. If the key mechanical work will be self-performed, describe that as well.

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.

NOTE: There is a page limit of seven (7) single-sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Plan (excluding the Organizational Chart). 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.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Plans 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. Plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the WPAFB Chiller Repairs project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. We really want to see how you plan to manage this project in particular and what critical tasks in this solicitation you feel need more attention to help mitigate risk. A rating will be assigned using the Technical Assessment Rating table above.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

7.1 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 is required to address each of the following areas individually:

The extent to 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 practicality 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: __________________ %

NOTE: Small Business primes’ self-performance counts as Small Business Participation, and small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and/or through subcontracting to other small businesses.

(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).

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN.

The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on the offeror’s best efforts, 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 20% 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 participation percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals to help ensure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

8.0 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, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options (if any). The price will be evaluated 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 Agreements

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

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

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

8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

8.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and 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 offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

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

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 all joint venture members.

8.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.5 Tab E - Subcontracting Plan

8.5.1 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 5119.705-4. The offeror may use the attached sample sub-contracting plan as a starting point. Percentage goals apply to the total amount being subcontracted.

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Submitted information will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with AFARS 5119.705-4. To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must:

(a) Adequately address the required statutory elements.

(b) Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD (AFARS 5119.705), a copy of which is attached.

(c) To be acceptable, subcontracting plans must meet all of the requirements outlined in Appendix DD, Part 3, AFARS 5119.705. 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.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity Identifier:

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. 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)…