W912QR21R0001_Specs-0002.pdf

CIVIL/OPS/ENVIRONMENTAL BR

ATTN: MIRIAHA SIGMON

600 DR M L KING JR PL, RM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2236

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 W912QR21R0001 to construct a Multi-Use Helicopter Training Facility (MUHT) located at FT. Campbell, KY is hereby modified as follows:

SEE CONTINUATION

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 38

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 W912QR21R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Aug-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Oct-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 964860

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR21R0001_Specs-0002

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 0002 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Solicitation W912QR21R0001 to construct a Multi-Use Training Facility (MUHT) at Ft. Campbell, KY is hereby modified as follows:

a. The following Specification Sections have been revised and replaced in their entirety:

a. 00 10 00 PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

b. 00 80 00.00 06 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

c. 01 45 04.10 06 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

d. 01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

e. 05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

b. The following Drawings have been revised and replaced in their entirety:

a. GI-005 BORROW/DISPOSAL AREA PLAN

b. CS-201 PHASING PLAN

c. VL A-201 ELEVATIONS

d. VL A-301 BUILDING SECTIONS

e. VL A-601 DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

f. STO A-101 FLOOR PLAN

g. STO A-601 DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

h. STO A-602 OVERHEAD COILING DOOR DETAIL

i. TWR A-110 FIRST FLOOR PLAN (GRADE LEVEL)

j. TWR A-411 SHIP LADDER W/SECTIONS AND DETAILS

k. TWR A-502 SAFETY NETTING DETAILS

l. TWR A-601 DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

m. TWR A-602 DOOR DETAILS

n. TWR A-801 ISOMETRRIC STAIRS AND LADDERS

o. TWR S-001 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES, DESIGN LOADS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

p. TWR S-003 SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM

q. TWR S-101 FOUNDATION PLAN

r. TWR S-501 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAILS

s. TWR S-521 TYPICAL FRAMING DETAILS

t. TWR E-501 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

u. CY A-601 DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

v. CY S-001 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

w. CY S-002 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

x. EP1 S-002 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

y. EP2 S-001 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

z. EP2 S-002 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

c. Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Criteria, Paragraph 5.1.1 is hereby revised and replaced in its entirety.

d. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Location: Fort Campbell, KY

P2 464863/PN 87438

Proposer's Name:

Item No. Description Unit Amount

BASE PROPOSAL

0001 Primary Facility – Tower Trainer (TWR), Elevated Platform Trainers (EP1 and EP2)

Job $

0002 Sitework related to Item No. 0001 Job $

0003 Utility Fees related to Item No. 0001 Job $ $91,495

TOTAL BASE PROPOSAL $

OPTIONS

0004 Option A – Courtyard Trainer (CY) Job $

0005 Option B – Storage Building (STO) Job $

0006 Option C – Vault Latrine (VL) Job $

0007 Utility Fees related to Item No. 0005 Job $ $47,375

0008 Sitework related to Option A Courtyard Trainer Job $

0009 Sitework related to Option B Storage Building Job $

0010 Sitework related to Option C Vault Latrine Job $

TOTAL OPTIONS $

TOTAL BASE PROPOSAL + ALL OPTIONS $

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been modified:

PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

Project: Multi-use Helicopter Training (MUHT) Facility

Description of Base Proposal Items

a) Item No. 0001 “Primary Facility – Tower and Elevated Platform Trainers (TWR, EP1, EP2)” includes all Base Proposal construction work required within a line five feet outside the footprint of those four facilities.

b) Item No. 0002 “Sitework related to Item No. 0001” includes all Base proposal demolition, utilities, paving, landscaping, and other construction work required beyond a line five feet outside of the four facilities listed in Item No. 0001. This line item also includes the NPDES Stormwater permit, site clearing, grading, and drainage construction work required within the construction limits for the Base Proposal.

c) Item No. 0003 “Utility Fees” includes all costs to be paid to the Privatized Electrical Utility provider, associated with service outages and inspections fees required for the electrical utilities, exclusive of any fees required for temporary connections during construction.

Description of Option Items

d) Item No. 0004 “Option A – Courtyard Trainer (CY)” includes all construction work required within a line five feet outside of the the footprint of the Courtyard Trainer. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

e) Item No. 0005 “Option B – Storage Building (STO)” includes all construction work required within a line five feet outside of the Storage Building. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

f) Item No. 0006 “Option C – Vault Latrine (VL)” includes all construction work required within a line five feet outside of the Vault Latrine. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

g) Item No. 0007 “Utility Fees related to Item No. 0005” includes all costs to be paid to the Privatized Electrical Utility provider, associated with service outages and inspections fees required for the electrical utilities, exclusive of any fees required for temporary connections during construction, for Item No. 0005, “Option B – Storage Building (STO)”.

h) Item No. 0008 “Sitework related to Option A Courtyard Trainer” includes all demolition, utilities, paving, landscaping, and other construction work associated with Item No. 0004 “Option A – Courtyard Trainer (CY)” beyond a line five feet outside of the Courtyard Trainer. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

i) Item No. 0008 “Sitework related to Option B Storage Building” includes all demolition, utilities, paving, landscaping, and other construction work associated with Item No. 0005 “Option B – Storage Building (STO)” beyond a line five feet outside of the Storage Building. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

j) Item No. 0008 “Sitework related to Option C Vault Latrine” includes demolition, utilities, paving, landscaping, and other construction work associated with Item No. 0006 “Option C – Vault Latrine (VL)” beyond a line five feet outside of the Vault Latrine. This item covers the construction work required in lieu of or in addition to that work included in the Base Proposal.

***These Options may be exercised within 90 days of Notice-to-Proceed (NTP).

– END OF PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE –

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00 – Supplementary Instructions

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Construction of Multi-Use Helicopter Training Facility at Ft. Campbell, KY. 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 is fair and reasonable in price, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

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, technical approach and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

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. Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Miriaha Sigmon. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

NOTE: If hand delivering a proposal you will need to enter on the North side of the building and you must wear a mask in the building at all times.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Past Performance, Management Plan, Small Business Participation Plan and Price and Pro Forma. 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 five (5) paper copies and one electronic copy on CD/DVD*. Volume II shall be submitted in original and one electronic copy on CD/DVD* only and shall be placed in a separate envelope.

Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc on CD/DVD (one copy). Provide the complete Volume II proposal submittal on CD/DVD (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.

2.4 The target ceiling for contract award is $4,600,000.00 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.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors 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 Tradeoff Process.

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

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance 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. Past Performance will be rated based on confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant experience and how well the offeror performed that experience. Management Plan will be rated using an adjectival-based system (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable).

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 will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. NOTE: a proposal that has an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor II and/or III is unawardable.

NOTE: Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

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

4.3 Volume I- Factor II –Management Plan (Three-Ring Binder) 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 Subcontracting Plan Not Rated Tab C Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements Not Rated

Tab D Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability 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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition 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.

Management Plan 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

Rating Definition

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 offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

FAR 15.001.

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

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

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

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

9. Bid/Proposal. The term bid and proposal are used interchangeably in industry. A “proposal” is defined as the firm’s plan and “bid” is defined as the proposed cost for fulfilling the conditions outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

5. 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 eight (8) years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than eight (8) 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. 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.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size to this requirement shall be a minimum of 5,000 square feet of vertical construction, with at least five (5) acres of site work. This square footage may be a combination of multiple buildings provided that all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this requirement shall be new construction of aviation, urban or range training complexes that include a range control tower/control building and associated site work.

NOTE: Renovation projects will NOT be considered similar in size or scope to this requirement.

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

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

a) Experience with construction of multi-story steel framed structures with three or more floors.

b) Experience with construction of mechanically-stabilized earth (MSE) walls, which includes configuration of precast elements, fasteners, connections, soil reinforcements, joint fillers, geotextile filter, and other necessary components.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed. If project is not yet complete, provide a 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) Role of firm; provide a description of type of work performed and percentage of work self-performed.

f) Dollar value of the project.

g) Whether the project was design/build or design/bid/build.

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address).

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

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. 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, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed joint venture 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 party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier number with the JV proposal. 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 five (5).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

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

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

Confidence Assessment (Table 2) above. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The SSEB will review the information submitted for the design firm and will consider this information when assigning an overall confidence rating. The design firm will not receive its own confidence rating.

NOTE: The Government may discuss all past performance information for the design firm with the prime contractor.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 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 reduce risk and ensure successful completion of the project. Minimally, the Management Plan shall address the following information:

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

□ Discuss and provide your plan for managing subcontractors during contract performance.

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

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

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The offeror’s 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 offeror’s level of understanding of project risks and the approach for minimizing these risks.

6.1.3 The SSEB will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the offeror’s organizational chart for managing a successful project.

The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, and understanding of the organizational controls (i.e. chain of command) required for managing a successful project. The offeror’s rating will be assigned using the ratings in the Management Plan Ratings (Table 3) above.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan

NOTE: Factor III will be rated using the Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings shown in the Small Business Participation Ratings Table, above

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 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 disabledveteran 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 (Dev). 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 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 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 moreheavily 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 theproposed 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.

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

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

8.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

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

8.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.2 Tab B - Subcontracting Plan

8.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Large business offerors shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 (Dev). To be acceptable, plans must adequately address the required statutory elements and provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions 1 through 13 of Appendix DD, Part 2, AFARS 5119.705. You may use the attached sample sub-contracting plan as a starting point. Percentage goals apply to the total amount being subcontracted.

8.2.2 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 answeraffirmatively 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.

8.3 Tab C: Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

8.3.1 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.

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

8.4 Tab D: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & 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 the offeror’s banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

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

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

8.4.2 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.

8.5 Tab E: Pre-Award Information

8.5.1 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

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

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

8.5.2 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.

HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR

USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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)

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)

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 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.)

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).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions…