W912QR22R0024-0001.pdf

W912QR22R0024

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

Project: Construction Management Services for Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Purpose: The purpose of the amendment is to:

1. Correct the link for the PIEE vendor registration in the Evaluation Criteria section (changes are highlighted in yellow )

2. Update FAR 52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 16

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jan-2022

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 W912QR22R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jan-2022

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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Jan-2022

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

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 Construction Management Services Contract. 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 an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 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 a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Construction

Management Services (CMS) support at various civil and military construction offices/projects primarily within the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. The scope of services includes providing assistance to the US Army Corps of Engineers in its CMS mission at various projects in the above service area. Each request for CMS services will be ordered by “task order” under a solicitation to the contractor. All task order work is considered to be non-personal services and will have a duration set forth with each task order.

2. Submittal of offers.

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

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of Standard Form 1449. Detailed submission instructions are listed below in paragraph 2.6 of this section.

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

NOTE: 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 separate file and shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1449 and Schedule A

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements

• Volume II – Tab C: Pre-Award Information

2.6 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE

SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH PIEE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (https://piee.eb.mil/). The PIEE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link-https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/portal/portal/Vendor_Registration.pdf. If you plan on submitting a proposal, be sure to select “SOL-Solicitation” in the drop down list and choose the “Proposal Manager” role to be able to submit a proposal in PIEE.

Further training is available at this link:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml. This link shows information regarding the Solicitation application in PIEE and the different roles available.

Link for Offerors regarding an Overview of the Proposal Manager function and instruction on submitting a proposal-https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for uploading files. PIEE supports delivery up to 1.9 GB per file, with no limit on the number of files, as well as multiple file formats. 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:

• W912QR22R0024-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

• W912QR22R0024-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 11 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.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/portal/portal/Vendor_Registration.pdf https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in 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 PIEE 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 incorporated by reference in 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.

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 and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance and Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the Offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the 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.

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

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All non-cost/price factors, when combined, are considered approximately equal to cost or 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 II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Separate File)

Tab A Standard Form 1449 and Schedule A Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated Tab C Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

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

TABLE 1

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

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

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

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

TABLE 2

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.

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. 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 are those with a value of at least $30,000.00 for the construction management services contract.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include those for full or part time on-site construction inspection and oversight services, that include safety oversight, as set forth both by OSHA or Corps of Engineers safety Manual (EM 385-1-1). The following services are considered to be on-site construction inspection and oversight services:

• Review of submittals, safety plans and shop drawings for contract compliance;

• Review of actual work performed to evaluate compliance with contract terms, contract schedule and make recommendations for contractor’s monthly earnings;

• General office engineering duties such as drafting change documents, preparing cost estimates, reviewing schedules (CPM analysis), drafting correspondence, reviewing contractor proposals, participating in various communications with contractors, customers and internal staff, records establishment and maintenance;

• Conducting quality assurance and safety meetings with contractors;

• Coordinating work activities with customers and contractors;

• Preparing daily quality assurance reports and other incidental reports;

• Provide technical expertise related to structural steel erection, painting, masonry, site work, interior finishes, roofing, electrical, mechanical, civil, and examination of welds, NFPA Life Safety Code, testing and other expertise/service related to construction for both civil and military projects;

• Providing computer expertise in commonly used software for letters, data base, spreadsheet, communications and other applications as appropriate;

• Construction management for over-all surveillance and management of construction projects or offices from conducting preconstruction conferences through final inspection and close-out;

• Providing engineering, technical, clerical and administrative support personnel related to the above services, including contract interpretation and recommendations;

• Provide expert testimony or opinions or reports in connection with any of the above in support of change/ claim/ dispute administration;

• HTRW certified staff may be required for oversight of hazardous waste removal and disposal.

NOTE: Not all services need to be shown in a single project for it to be considered similar. Offerors that exhibit experience providing a variety of these services may receive a higher confidence rating.

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

• Past Performance of construction management services for USACE

• Projects that include multiple disciplines included in paragraph 5.1.3.

5.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

• Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier;

• Scope of work, to include disciplines provided;

• Size (dollar value);

• Two references, including name, telephone number, and email address.

5.1.6 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 1449. 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 5.1.1 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 (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 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.

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 (Table 2) 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 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a Management Plan narrative that describes how your labor, resources, and subcontractors, will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the contract requirements.

Provide the qualifications and experience of the following individuals on your proposed team, including subcontractors. The contractor is required to provide the identified individuals for task orders unless a similarly qualified individual is provided and approved by the Contracting Officer.

• Provide two (2) resumes for Sr. Construction Representatives with at least ten (10) years of experience meeting the position description below and demonstrate experience with at least one of the listed specialized skills or codes under the position description.

• Provide two (2) resumes for Jr. Construction Representatives with at least five (5) years of experience meeting the position description below and demonstrate experience with at least one of the listed specialized skills or codes under the position description.

• Provide a resume for one (1) cost Estimator with at least five (5) years of experience as a cost engineer. Additional consideration will be given if the individual is a certified cost engineer (CCE), certified cost consultant (CCC), or comparable certification (American Society of Professional Estimators or Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering).

• Provide resumes for two (2) Schedulers with a minimum of five (5) years of experience using Primavera P6 creating and implementing new vertical construction, renovation, medical facility, pharmaceutical, and heavy-highway type of construction.

• Provide a resume for one (1) Safety Specialist with at least five (5) years of

Construction Industry safety experience meeting the position description below.

Additional consideration will be given if the individual is Certified Safety Professional (CSP) or has completed the Health Care Construction (HCC) certification through the American Society for Health Care Engineering (ASHE).

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) single-sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Plan. The resume portion does not count towards the 10 page limit of the management plan.

Individual resumes may not exceed 1 single- sided, 8.5” x 11” page, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides each.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Additionally, the qualifications and experience will be evaluated based on education, certifications, training, registration, overall and relevant experience and longevity with the firm. The individuals identified by project roles may not be dual-hatted. For example, a resume for a single individual may not attempt to meet two (2) or more positions.

Individuals with experience utilizing RMS (Resident Management System) may be given additional consideration.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information (Submit in a separate file).

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1449 and Schedule A.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1449 and Schedule A. Below the Schedule A is also a sample hours chart. The Offeror shall fill out this chart using the base (or year 1) rates. This chart will only be used for evaluation purposes.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated based on the total dollar value of the sample hours chart.

The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), 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. A copy of the offeror's signed joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. In addition to the joint venture agreement, small business offerors submitting a proposal as a Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA 8(a) or All Small Business Mentor-Protégé programs shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Small business joint venture 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 set-aside acquisitions and/or small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Pre-Award Information

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The Offeror shall submit one completed copy of the Representations and Certifications (Reps & Certs) section.

B. The Offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business;

b) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value.

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

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: 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.

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.

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

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 (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

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

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.252-3 ALTERATIONS IN SOLICITATION (APR 1984)

Portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

Project: Construction Management Services for Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Purpose: The purpose of the amendment is to:

1. Correct the link for the PIEE vendor registration in the Evaluation Criteria section (changes are highlighted in yellow)

2. Update FAR 52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation

(End of Summary of Changes)