W912QR23R0024_NRP_PH1-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Design-Build Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Building Envelope, Roof Repair and Replacement Construction in Support of the U.S. Army Reserves National Roofing Program (NRP), Army, and Air Force Reserve Sections is hereby amended as follow s:

See Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Mar-2024

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 W912QR23R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Feb-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Mar-2024

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:

W912QR23R0024_NRP_PH1-0001

W912QR23R0024

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:

Amendment 0001 – Continuation Page

A. SECTION 00 22 16 – PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE

ONE

Para. 5.0, Phase I – Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance o Para. 5.1.1 – Revised to state, “Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects in which construction is substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last twelve

(12) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope.”

o Para. 5.1.5(f) – Revised to clarify, “(A/E DOR need not provide. Prime Contractor only.)

o Para. 5.1.6(e) – Revised to clarify, “Copy of manufacturers system warranty for roofing system.

(A/E DOR need not provide. Prime Contractor only.)

o Para. 5.1.7 – As stated in 5.1.7, the Government hereby includes a sample Past Performance

Questionnaire.

o Para. 5.1.7 NOTE: – Reference to DUNS has been revised and replaced with Unique Entity

Identifier.

o Para. 5.2.2(f) – Revised to clarify, “(A/E DOR need not provide. Prime Contractor only.)

Para. 6.0, Phase I – Volume I – Factor II: Technical Qualifications o Para. 6.1.1 – The statement, “Offeror’s may utilize the Sample Manufacturer’s Certification Form at the end of this Specification Section” has been removed in its entirety.

Para. 6.2.1, Phase I – Volume I – Factor II: Technical Qualifications o Para. 6.2.1, The statement, “A sample certificate is attached for your use or reference” has been removed in its entirety.

Para. 7.4, Tab D o Title revised to state, “Pre-Award Information” o Para. 7.4.1 – Reference to DUNS has been revised and replaced with Unique Entity Identifier.

B. The date and time for submission of proposals has been revised from 26 March 2024 at 2:00PM ET to 2 April 2024 at 2:00PM ET.

C. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 10 00 – SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 26-Mar-2024 02:00 PM to 02-Apr-2024 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA - 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of seven (7) contractors for Design Build Multiple Award

Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for building envelope and roof repair and replacement within the Louisville District’s Area of Responsibility.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement. 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, a target of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. 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. Upon completion of Phase I, an announcement identifying the selected offerors and the expected date of issue of Phase II will be placed in the System for Award Management (www.SAM.gov). Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a seed project and binding contract rates. A seed task order (Locations: Ft. Wayne, IN, Brookeville, PA, and Ft. Shafter Flats, Honolulu, HI) will be awarded as a result of this solicitation and will be awarded to the lowest priced offeror.

2. SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS.

2.1 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 13 of Standard Form 1442. The proposal submission process may be found in section

2.6. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this Design Build Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOC contract. For Phase I offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraph 2.3 & 2.4. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically, as described in paragraph 2.5 below, with a table of contents. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance o Prime Contractor and A-E Designer of Record Volume I – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. No pricing information shall be placed in the Volume I files. 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.

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

2.4 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted electronically, as described in paragraph 2.5 below, 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 and Proof of Financial

Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

2.5 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module https://wawf.eb.mil/.

Instructions on how to create a vendor account will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_I nstructions.pdf

Instructions on how to submit an offer will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

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 Solicitation Module 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. As noted above, offerors will not receive a confirmation email but instead will receive upload confirmation in the browser following successful upload. Email the upload confirmation to Jesse Scharlow at Jesse.E.Scharlow@usace.army.mil

Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Submission shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format.

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:

• W912QR23R0024-FIRMNAME -VOLUME I

• W912QR23R0024-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. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 1l” x 7” foldouts, 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 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.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in pdf format and 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 Section 00 21 00 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.

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. 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 a Best Value Trade-Off.

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

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

3.2.2 Past Performance / Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated 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 on that experience. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using an adjectival-based system. The Contracting Officer / Source Selection Authority will select up to a maximum of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II. Phase I factors will not carry forward into Phase II for inclusion in the best value trade-off analysis.

4. Phase I 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 approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

Prime Contractor and Design Firm Equal

4.3 Volume I – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications 2nd

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 and Not Rated

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. 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

9. Risk- as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

5.0 Phase I – Volume I – Factor I - Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Prime Contractor

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects in which construction is substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last twelve (12) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope. Projects completed more than twelve (12) years before issue of solicitation date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if construction is 95% complete, with only punch list remaining. 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.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size shall be a minimum of 8,000 square feet. This square footage shall be for work that was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall be full roof replacement projects on industrial, commercial, or

Federal facilities which required installation of Built-up, Modified Bitumen, Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM), Polyvinylchloride and/or Standing Seam Metal systems by certified applicators with a minimum of a 20-year No-Dollar Limit System warranty. Thermoplastic Olefin (TPO) systems shall not qualify as acceptable similar project experience. The past performance portfolio shall demonstrate experience in both steep sloped and low sloped roofing systems. Roof installation projects may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 75% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Contractors are encouraged to submit projects that contain the following features:

a) Design/Build projects

b) Established, working relationship with the prime contractor and proposed designer on prior Design/Build projects

c) USACE projects

d) Projects being constructed simultaneously

e) Experience for projects in at least three separate system types (either in one project or through multiple projects)

f) Projects older than 10 years with proof of NO history of failures. (A/E DOR need not provide.

Prime Contractor only.)

g) Experience with projects designed under UFC-3-110-03, Roofing.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided and clearly delineated 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) Copy of manufacturers system warranty for roofing system. (A/E DOR need not provide. Prime

Contractor only.)

f) Role of firm; provide a description of type of work performed and percentage of work self-performed.

g) Dollar value of the project

h) Whether the project was design/build or design/bid/build

i) 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.

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 agreement 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 (UEI) number 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 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 five (5).

5.1.8 A-E Designer of Record

Offerors shall provide the same information as stated in Paragraphs 5.1.1 – 5.1.7 for the A/E Designer of Record to be used on this 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. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP.

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

a) Design/Build projects

b) Established, working relationship with the prime contractor and proposed designer on prior Design/Build projects

c) USACE projects

d) Projects being constructed simultaneously

e) Experience for projects in at least three separate system types (either in one project or through multiple projects)

f) Projects older than 10 years with proof of NO history of failures. (A/E DOR need not provided. Prime Contractor only.)

g) Experience with projects designed under UFC-3-110-03, Roofing.

An individual project that meets one (1) or more of the additional criteria may be assessed a higher relevancy rating. A past performance portfolio that collectively satisfies all of the additional criteria may receive a higher overall relevancy rating. A past performance portfolio that includes multiple recent and relevant projects up to the maximum number of five (5) may receive additional consideration.

5.2.3 The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. The Government will at a minimum review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance, including for projects other than those submitted by the offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through FAPIIS or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Qualifications

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Certification: The Contractor shall provide evidence of Manufacturers’ Certification to install 20 Year, No- Dollar Limit or System Warranties for Modified Bitumen, EPDM, PVC, and Standing Seam Metal that shall include workmanship as well as materials. Be certain to state the appropriate specific system type (i.e.

EPDM) in your evidence documentation for certification as oppose to or in addition to a typical Manufacturer’s brand or promotional name for that system.

6.1.2 Technical Qualifications Narrative: The Contractor shall provide a technical qualifications narrative that describes its knowledge of and ability to successfully perform the most up-to-date roof repair and installation techniques. Narratives may include discussion of memberships, certifications, trainings, or any other factors that demonstrate contractors possess the technical qualifications to successfully perform work under this MATOC. Additional consideration may be given to firms with memberships to National Roofing Contractors Association, Midwest Roofing Contractors Association, any State Roofing Contractors Association, Roof Consultants Institute or Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) 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 narrative. Professional and trade organization membership certificates, plaques or other insignia, training certificates or other official documentation of industry expertise and participation may be provided and will not be included in the 8-page limit.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 Certifications: Certifications will be reviewed for evidence of Manufacturers’ Certification to install in compliance of 20-year, No-Dollar Limit System Warranties for Modified Bitumen, EPDM, PVC and Standing Seam Metal. Workmanship and materials for the aforementioned roof systems shall also be included. Be certain to state the appropriate specific system type (i.e. EPDM) in your evidence documentation for certification as oppose to or in addition to a typical Manufacturer’s brand or promotional name for that system type. The certification element of this evaluation factor will be rated on a go/no go basis.

6.2.2 Technical Qualification Narrative: Technical Qualification Narratives will be reviewed to assess the offerors’ knowledge of and ability to successfully perform the most up-to-date roof repair and installation techniques. Length of time in trade organizations, relevancy of certifications and training, and training/certifications in multiple systems and roof types, as well as any additional information regarding offerors’ technical qualification will be reviewed and evaluated. Technical Qualification Narratives that demonstrate an understanding of USACE policies and processes may be given additional consideration.

Additional consideration may be given for more than 5 years in a trade organization. Additional consideration may be given to firms with memberships to National Roofing Contractors Association, Midwest Roofing Contractors Association, any State Roofing Contractors Association, Roof Consultants Institute or Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.

7. Volume II – Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A – Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442.

7.1.2 Review 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 signed.

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, 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 Review Criteria:

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 and 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 firm's banking institution.

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

7.3.2 Review Criteria:

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

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

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

7.4.2 Review 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.

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):

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment 0001

Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions

EVALUATION CRITERIA - 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16

Amendment 0001

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of seven (7) contractors for Design Build Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for building envelope and roof repair and replacement within the Louisville District’s Area of Responsibility.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement. 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, a target of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. 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. Upon completion of Phase I, an announcement identifying the selected offerors and the expected date of issue of Phase II will be placed in the System for Award Management (www.SAM.gov). Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a seed project and binding contract rates. A seed task order (Locations: Ft. Wayne, IN, Brookeville, PA and Ft. Shafter Flats – Honolulu, HI) will be awarded as a result of this solicitation.

2. SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS.

2.1 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 13 of Standard Form 1442. The proposal submission process may be found in section

2.6. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this Design Build Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOC contract. For Phase I offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraph 2.3 & 2.4. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically, as described in paragraph 2.5 below, with a table of contents. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

• Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance o Prime Contractor and A-E Designer of Record

• Volume I – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. No pricing information shall be placed in the Volume I files. 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.

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

2.4 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted electronically, as described in paragraph 2.5 below, 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 and Proof of Financial

Ability

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

Amendment 0001

2.5 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module https://wawf.eb.mil/.

Instructions on how to create a vendor account will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_I nstructions.pdf

Instructions on how to submit an offer will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

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 Solicitation Module 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. As noted above, offerors will not receive a confirmation email but instead will receive upload confirmation in the browser following successful upload. Email the upload confirmation to Jesse Scharlow at Jesse.E.Scharlow@usace.army.mil

Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Submission shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format.

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:

• W912QR23R0024-FIRMNAME -VOLUME I

• W912QR23R0024-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. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 1l” x 7” foldouts, 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 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.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in pdf format and 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-

W912QR…