W912QR22R0027-0001.pdf

CIVIL/OPS/ENVIRONMENTAL BR

ATTN: RENEE BOOTH

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 W912QR22R0027 for Design-Build construction of Child Development Center (CDC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH is hereby modified as follows:

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 63

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 W912QR22R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Apr-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 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

04-May-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 W912QR

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR22R0027-0001

W912QR22R0027

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:

AMEND 0001 CONTINUATION PAGE

Solicitation W912QR22R0027 for Design-Build construction of Child Development Center (CDC) at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, OH is hereby modified as follows:

a. Section 00 21 00, Electronic Submission Instructions, is hereby revised to reflect a change to the minimum font size from 10 pt. to 11 pt. to coincide with the Evaluation Criteria font specifications.

b. Evaluation Criteria 00 22 16 is hereby replaced in its entirety. Specific revisions are listed.

Section 5.1.1, Prime Contractor, revised to remove sentences referencing “formats for project details are included in the RFP”.

Section 5.1.8, A/E Designer of Record (DOR), revised to add text. Additional text is displayed in red font.

Section 6.1.3, Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build, revised the NOTE to increase the number of pages allowed for submission from 8 pages to 10 pages.

c. Wage Determination OH20220001, dated 3/11/2022, Revision 5 is hereby replaced in its entirety with the current revision dated 4/8/2022, Revision 6 and must be adhered to.

d. The following Specification Sections are being added to the solicitation:

00 80 00.00 06 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

01 45 04.10 06 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

e. The submission date is not extended. Acknowledgment of receipt of this amendment and proposals are due by date of 13 May 2022 at 10:00 am ET.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

a. M. Renee Booth, Contract Specialist at Meranda.R.Booth@usace.army.mil

b. Patrick J. Duggins, Contracting Officer at Patrick.J.Duggins@usace.army.mil

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

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

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

W912QR22R0027-FIRMNAME.

4. Click Upload button to send documents.

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

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

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

W912QR22R0027-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

W912QR22R0027-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. 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 DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

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

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

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION FOR PHASE ONE

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for new construction of Child Development Center (CDC) located at WPAFB, OH. This project is for the Design-Build construction of a Child Development Center (CDC). An adequately sized and configured Child Development Center (CDC) is required to provide day care services for dependent children of active-duty service members, DoD civilians, active-duty reservists, and contractor personnel. The CDC will provide a safe and healthy environment with adequate space for 304 children ranging in age from infants through pre-school age (birth through 5 years old). The scope of the project includes civil site work, infrastructure, mechanical, electrical, fire alarm, security system, and architectural features relevant to a Child Care Facility. 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 to 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 This is a two-phase procurement, and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase II notification. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.3 The target ceiling for contract award is $20,820,000.00 based on funds made available for this project for the base plus all options. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance and management capabilities necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Due to COVID-19 impacts, all submissions to this proposal announcement shall be submitted electronically through DoD SAFE no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Please refer to and follow the instructions specified in the Electronic Proposal Submission Instructions, attached herein.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design/build project. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

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

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance o Prime Contractor o A/E Designer of Record (DOR)

Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build

2.5 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

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

The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: proposal compliance/responsibility review, and technical evaluation.

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

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 & 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach for Design/Build will be rated using Table 3 below.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical proposal in their initial offer. The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of up to the five (5) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II of the procurement.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

Prime Contractor Equal to A/E DOR A/E DOR Equal to Prime Contractor

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach 2nd

for Design/Build

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

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

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings:

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

Table 1

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

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

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

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

Table 2 Performance Confidence Assessments

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Table 3 Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

4.6 Definitions:

1. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

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

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

FAR 15.001.

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

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

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

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

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Prime Contractor

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last seven (7) years which are similar to this project in scope and size. Projects completed more than seven (7) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (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: Renovation work is NOT to be considered similar in size or scope to this requirement.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size to this requirement shall be a minimum of 35,000 SF of new construction.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this requirement shall be new construction of a daycare or preschool education facility.

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

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

a) Design/Build projects

b) Established, working relationship with the proposed DOR on prior Design/Build projects.

c) Experience working with USACE

d) Experience working with Child Development Centers on U.S. Military Installations

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.

5.1.8 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed or for which construction is substantially complete within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope (see paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 above). Projects completed more than seven (7) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. In order to be considered similar in size and scope, the proposed A/E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one (1) design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm as determined using the rating and evaluation criteria listed in section 5 and applied as shown in Tables I and II in subsection 4.5. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

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

a) Design/Build projects

b) Established, working relationship with the Prime Contractor on prior Design/Build projects

c) Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (e.g., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact, United Facilities Guide Specifications)

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

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

5.2.2 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects.

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

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offer’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach for executing design-build projects. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach narrative shall address the information described in paragraphs 6.1.2– 6.1.3 below:

6.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s Design-Build team and how their resources will be utilized in order to deliver this design-build project. Describe how the design and construction process will be managed throughout the entirety of the project life cycle (e.g., Design - Review Process, Fast Track, Construction – Subcontractor Management, Commissioning, Close-out – As Built, O&M Manuals, etc.).

6.1.3 Communication Plan: Describe interactions and communications both within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers throughout the entirety of the project life cycle.

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 Technical Approach for Design/Build Factor.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The Government will review and identify the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal. The Government will evaluate the proposal based on the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design/Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects. Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal to demonstrate their approach for successfully completing the solicited Design/Build project.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record, construction firm, and the Government reviewers. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to execute design/build projects, to include the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction, as well as the strength of the offeror’s proposed approach to control and track revisions to the design. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process.

7. Volume II –Proforma Information (Submit in a separate file).

7.1 Tab A: Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 of this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer is signed.

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B: Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé 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), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, 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.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of the offeror’s banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

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

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

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

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

7.4 Tab D: Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

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

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

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

WAGE RATES OH20220001 HVY HWY

"General Decision Number: OH20220001 04/08/2022

Superseded General Decision Number: OH20210001

State: Ohio

Construction Types: Heavy and Highway

Counties: Ohio Statewide.

Heavy and Highway Construction Projects

Note: Contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act are generally required to pay at least the applicable minimum wage rate required under Executive Order 14026 or Executive Order 13658.

Please note that these Executive Orders apply to covered contracts entered into by the federal government that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but do not apply to contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(2)-(60).

|If the contract is entered |. Executive Order 14026 | |into on or after January 30, | generally applies to the | |2022, or the contract is | contract. | |renewed or extended (e.g., an |. The contractor must pay | |option is exercised) on or | all covered workers at | |after January 30, 2022: | least $15.00 per hour (or | | | the applicable wage rate | | | listed on this wage | | | determination, if it is | | | higher) for all hours | | | spent performing on the | | | contract in 2022. | |If the contract was awarded on |. Executive Order 13658 | |or between January 1, 2015 and | generally applies to the | |January 29, 2022, and the | contract. | |contract is not renewed or |. The contractor must pay all| |extended on or after January | covered workers at least | |30, 2022: | $11.25 per hour (or the | | | applicable wage rate listed| | | on this wage determination,| | | if it is higher) for all | | | hours spent performing on | | | that contract in 2022. |

The applicable Executive Order minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. If this contract is covered by one of the Executive Orders and a classification considered necessary for performance of work on the contract does not appear on this wage determination, the contractor must still submit a conformance request.

Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the Executive Orders is available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/07/2022 1 01/14/2022 2 01/28/2022 3 02/18/2022 4 02/25/2022 5 03/11/2022 6 04/08/2022

BROH0001-001 06/01/2021

DEFIANCE, FULTON (Excluding Fulton, Amboy & Swan Creek Townships), HENRY (Excluding Monroe, Bartlow, Liberty, Washington, Richfield, Marion, Damascus & Townships & that part of Harrison Township outside corporate limits of city of Napoleon), PAULDING, PUTNAM and WILLIAMS COUNTIES

Rates Fringes

Bricklayer, Stonemason...........$ 30.40 17.55

BROH0001-004 06/01/2021

Rates Fringes

CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 30.40 17.55

BROH0003-002 06/01/2021

FULTON (Townships of Amboy, Swan Creek & Fulton), HENRY (Townships of Washington, Damascus, Richfield, Bartlow, Liberty, Harrison, Monroe, & Marion), LUCAS and WOOD (Townships of Perrysburg, Ross, Lake, Troy, Freedom, Montgomery, Webster, Center, Portage, Middleton, Plain, Liberty, Henry, Washington, Weston, Milton, Jackson & Grand Rapids) COUNTIES

BROH0005-003 06/01/2020

CUYAHOGA, LORAIN & MEDINA (Hinckley, Granger, Brunswick, Liverpool, Montville, York, Homer, Harrisville, Chatham, Litchfield & Spencer Townships and the city of Medina)

BRICKLAYER

BRICKLAYERS; CAULKERS;

CLEANERS; POINTERS; &

STONEMASONS.................$ 36.64 17.13

SANDBLASTERS................$ 36.39 17.13

SEWER BRICKLAYERS & STACK

BUILDERS....................$ 36.64 17.13

SWING SCAFFOLDS.............$ 37.14 17.13

BROH0006-005 06/01/2021

CARROLL, COLUMBIANA (Knox, Butler, West & Hanover Townships), STARK & TUSCARAWAS

BROH0007-002 06/01/2021

LAWRENCE

Rates Fringes

Bricklayer, Stonemason...........$ 30.40 17.55

BROH0007-005 06/01/2021

PORTAGE & SUMMIT

Rates Fringes

BRICKLAYER.......................$ 30.40 17.55

BROH0007-010 06/01/2017

PORTAGE & SUMMIT

Rates Fringes

MASON - STONE....................$ 28.65 14.55

BROH0008-001 06/01/2021

COLUMBIANA (Salem, Perry, Fairfield, Center, Elk Run, Middleton, & Unity Townships and the city of New Waterford), MAHONING & TRUMBULL

BRICKLAYER.......................$ 30.40 17.55

BROH0009-002 06/01/2021

BELMONT & MONROE COUNTIES and the Townships of Warren & Mt.

Pleasant and the Village of Dillonvale in JEFFERSON COUNTY

Refractory.......................$ 31.45 19.01

BROH0010-002 06/01/2021

COLUMBIANA (St. Clair, Madison, Wayne, Franklin, Washington, Yellow Creek & Liverpool Townships) & JEFFERSON (Brush Creek & Saline Townships)

BROH0014-002 06/01/2021

HARRISON & JEFFERSON (Except…