W912QR23R0048-0003.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

Solicitation W912QR23R0048 Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quanity (IDIQ) Design Build and Design Bid Build Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) to support construction requirements for the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP) nationw ide is hereby amended as follow s:

a.This solicitation is revised as outlined in the Summary of Changes.

b.The proposal due date is not extended as a result of this amendment.

c.All Amendments must be acknow ledged.

d.All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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 W912QR23R0048

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Aug-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 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

26-Sep-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:

W912QR23R0048-0003

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:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Amendment 0003

IDIQ MATOC to Support Construction Requirements for ERCIP Nationwide

The below identified sections are amended as outlined below. Changes are identified in red throughout the document:

SECTION 00 22 16 – PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE – Revised

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16 - PHASE 1

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1. The government intends to award a target of twelve (12) contracts overall within the MATOC pool, which will include a target of eight (8) Unrestricted contracts and a target of four (4) contracts Reserved for Small Business concerns. These MATOCs are for Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build Construction, Repair and Incidental Services supporting the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP) at any location in the Contiguous United States (CONUS) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Government reserves the right to award more (or less) than twelve Firm Fixed Price MATOCs.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 16, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase I, for review and evaluation by the Government. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the government will select (in accordance with the Phase 1 selection criteria) a total maximum of eighteen (18) offerors, determined to be the most highly qualified offerors, to submit Phase II proposals. To determine the total maximum of eighteen (18) offerors, the government will first select a maximum of the six (6) most highly qualified Small Business offerors to submit Phase II proposals to be evaluated for award within the Reserve group.

Any Small Business offerors that are not selected to advance to Phase II within the Reserve group will be moved to the Unrestricted group for further consideration. The government will then select a maximum of the twelve (12) most highly qualified offerors within the Unrestricted group to submit Phase II proposals.

Price will be evaluated in Phase II through the use of a sample project and binding contract rates. No seed task order will be awarded as a result of this solicitation.

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 evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successful performance. Proposals shall follow the 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 one (1) electronic copy of their offer via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module before the time and date specified in Block 13 of this SF 1442.

Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Blake Gevedon. 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/design-bid-build Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOC contract. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below.

2.4 All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and clearly marked sections.

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

• Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

NOTE: Volume I shall be submitted as one (1) electronic copy via the PIEE Solicitation Module before the proposal due date and time as identified in the solicitation. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate 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.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted as one (1) electronic copy via the PIEE Solicitation Module before the proposal due date and time as identified in the solicitation. Volume II for Phase I shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and Teaming Arrangements

• Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

Proposal Evaluation Process

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

3.1.1 Proposal Compliance Review: The Government will conduct an initial review to determine whether the offeror has submitted a complete and compliant proposal. This proposal compliance review will verify whether the offeror submitted the proposal data requested in Volume I and Volume II. Proposals which do not include the information required for Volume I and Volume II will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated.

3.1.2 Past Performance / Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using the ratings in Tables 1 and 2 below. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using an adjectival system (Table 3) that applies the technical risk descriptions (Table 4). A single overall Technical/Risk rating will be assigned for this factor. Separate technical risk ratings will not be assigned. The Contracting Officer / Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select up to a maximum of eighteen (18) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II. To determine the total maximum of eighteen (18) offerors, the government will first select a maximum of the six (6) most highly qualified Small Business offerors to submit Phase II proposals to be evaluated for award within the Reserve group. Any Small Business offerors that are not selected to advance to Phase II within the Reserve group will be moved to the Unrestricted group for further consideration. The government will then select a maximum of the twelve (12) most highly qualified offerors within the Unrestricted group to submit Phase II proposals.

The rating information for Phase I will not be considered in Phase II or in the final selection.

Phase I Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in descending order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and are responsible for including sufficient details in their Phase 1 proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of Phase 1 proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1. The Government may evaluate Phase 1 proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to communicate with offerors during Phase 1 and to request additional information or Phase 1 proposal revisions.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st Most Important Factor

• Prime Contractor Equal to A/E

• A/E Designer of Record Equal to Prime

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach 2nd Most Important Factor

• Element 1: Capability and Experience with Water Resiliency Projects

• Element 2: Collaborative Approach to Design-build

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, Not Rated and Teaming Arrangements

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 Assessment Ratings

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

Combined Technical/Risk

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.

TABLE 4

Technical Risk Descriptions Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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 on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

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

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Prime Contractor

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) electrical construction projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in scope, size, and complexity. Projects completed more than seven (7) years before the date of solicitation issuance will not be considered recent and will not be further evaluated. Projects are considered substantially complete if they are 85% or more completed. Individual projects completed as part of 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 The following information shall be provided for each electrical construction project:

5.1.2.1 Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

5.1.2.2 Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed.

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

5.1.2.4 Scope of the project, to include major electrical infrastructure and electrical construction infrastructure components constructed and the percentage of work that was self-performed for each

5.1.2.5 Sizes or capacities of the various components constructed

5.1.2.6 Complexity of the various components constructed

5.1.2.7 Whether the project was design-build or design-bid-build

5.1.2.8 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)

5.1.3 Electrical construction projects considered similar in scope shall be design/build or design/bid/build projects containing one or more of the following components:

5.1.3.1 New fossil fuel electrical power generation

5.1.3.2 New solar PV power generation

5.1.3.3 New microgrid control system

5.1.4 Electrical Projects considered similar in size shall include one or more of the following:

5.1.4.1 New fossil fuel electrical power generation of at least five megawatts (5 MW)

5.1.4.2 New solar PV power generation of at least 500 kilowatts (KW)

5.1.4.3 New microgrid control system that control one or more local power generation sources, one or more connections to public utility-provided power, AND that includes the ability to shed portions of the microgrid’s load while in islanded mode.

5.1.5 For electrical construction projects to be considered similar, the prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15 percent of the contract labor (including testing and layout personnel) as the prime contractor, exclusive of material, equipment, or subcontractors.

Note: Projects completed as part of an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) or Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC) may be considered similar. These projects may be considered similar so long as the offeror served as the general construction agent and self-performed at least 15 percent of the contract labor as outlined above. Projects submitted as constructed under an ESPC/UESC must be identified as stand-alone utility improvement projects and may not be combined.

Performance evaluations submitted for ESPC and/or UESC projects must be an evaluation of the offeror’s performance as the general construction agent for the submitted project.

5.1.6 For the Prime Contractor portion of the Past Performance 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 and not sent via 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. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a Section

7.2 Tab B Compliant joint venture offeror, and/or Teaming Arrangement as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), the offering JV 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 a JV and/or Teaming Arrangement must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) with the proposal. A copy of the offeror's signed joint venture agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement shall be submitted with the proposal.

Projects performed by Joint Ventures other than the Prime Contractor will not be evaluated unless the Prime Contractor, Joint Venture Member, or Teaming Arrangement Member was a part of the Joint Venture performing the submitted project. These projects will only be considered if the project was performed by a Joint Venture that is registered in SAM with its own UEI of which the offering Prime Contractor, Joint Venture Member(s), or Teaming Arrangement member(s) were part.

In addition to the joint venture agreement, small business offerors submitting a proposal as a Mentor- Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

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 JV offeror and/or Teaming Arrangement as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement or signed Teaming Arrangement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV and/or Small Business Teaming Arrangement for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV or Teaming Arrangement may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV and/or Teaming Arrangement shall not exceed three

(3) projects.

All Joint Venture and/or Teaming Arrangements must comply with Section 7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and Teaming Arrangements of this solicitation to be considered.

A-E Designer of Record

5.1.7 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) electrical construction projects that are constructed, or achieved certified final design, by the A/E contractor within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in scope, size, and complexity (see paragraph 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, AND 5.1.6). In order to be considered similar, the proposed A/E firm must have been the Designer of Record (DOR) on the submitted electrical construction project.

As part of this proposal, offerors are required to identify an Architect/Engineer Designer of Record (A/E DOR) as required by Section 00 22 16 of this solicitation under Section 7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information, paragraph B. The A/E DOR identified in this section of the offeror’s proposal must be used for the MATOC contract award resulting from this solicitation. The listed design firm is not required to be part of a joint venture and/or teaming arrangement as specified in Sections 5.1.6 and 6.1.3. 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.

5.1.8 For the A/E DOR portion of the Past Performance 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 and not sent via the agency from the reference.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The Past Performance evaluation will follow the same steps for both the Prime contractor and the A-E

Designer of Record. Factor I – Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent is defined at Section 5.1.1 above. Only recent projects will be further evaluated. Second, all recent projects will be evaluated for relevance. Relevant is defined at Section 5.1 above. All recent projects will be assigned a Relevance rating from Table 1 above based on how relevant a recent past project is when compared to the scope, size and complexity of the MATOC to be awarded from this solicitation. The offeror’s recent, relevant projects will not be individually rated for quality. Third, the Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s recent, relevant projects to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance record and assign a single Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating from Table 2 above. The Past Performance of both the Prime and A-E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

5.2.2 Additional consideration may be given for the following:

• Individual electrical construction projects that contain two or more scope components listed above.

• Electrical construction projects that contain one or more size components of larger sizes than listed above.

• Electrical construction projects that demonstrate significant coordination with one or more public electric utility providers, including but not limited to, successful conveyance of a completed project to the electric utility provider.

• Established working relationship with the proposed designer as demonstrated by prior design/build electrical construction projects.

• Demonstrated experience in successfully completing geographically diverse projects throughout the Contiguous United States, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

5.2.3 In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Past Performance factor. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence assessment rating of “Neutral Confidence.” Although an offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably in this situation, the Government may determine that a higher Past Performance rating on another offeror’s proposal is a better value to the Government than a proposal with a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

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

6.1 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

Submission Requirements:

Provide a Technical Approach narrative which addresses the information described below. 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 (Font and margin limitations/requirements are not applicable to tables, graphics, headers, and footers), for the Technical Approach narrative (inclusive of both Element 1 and Element 2 below). Pages beyond the page limit will not be evaluated. Project descriptions provided in support of paragraph 6.1.1 are included in the identified page limit above.

6.1.1 Element 1: Capability and Experience with Water Resiliency Projects

The Offeror shall submit:

(i) A narrative demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of water infrastructure construction requirements, risks, and practices. This may include requirements for successful water utility provider/system owner coordination, coordination with occupied and active facilities, permitting and commissioning of new water utility assets. This narrative should also include identification of critical subcontractors and suppliers which will ensure successful completion of water resiliency construction projects under this IDIQ.

(ii) Provide a description for up to two water construction projects which demonstrate the offeror’s/joint venture’s/teaming arrangement’s experience with new construction of water utility projects. Provide a project description which demonstrates the demonstrates the criteria below. It is recommended that each project description be not longer than one (1) page each. Submitted projects shall meet criteria a, b, and c below.

a. 85% or more completed within seven (7) years of the solicitation issuance date.

b. Projects which contain one or more of the following technical elements:

• Construction of new potable water distribution lines of minimum four inch (4”) nominal diameter pipe

• New construction of, or modifications to an existing, water treatment plant

• Construction of new elevated water storage tank and/or ground storage tank

• Installation and commissioning of a new smart water grid controller system as part of new construction

c. New water construction projects which contain one or more of the following technical magnitudes:

• New potable water distribution lines of at least 5,000 linear feet (LF) of minimum four inch (4”) nominal diameter pipe.

• New construction of, or modifications to an existing, water treatment plant capable of treating at least 100,000 gallons per day.

• New elevated water storage tank of at least 100,000 gallons and/or ground storage tank of at least 250,000 gallons.

6.1.2 Element 2: Collaborative Approach for Design-Build

Offerors shall submit:

A narrative discussing their approach to the following Design-Build activities:

• Identify the role of the construction team members during design, including a matrix of responsibilities and delegations of authority for the Prime and A-E DOR for Design-Build construction projects

• Identify the interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction.

• Discuss fast-tracking/design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design;

• Detail the offeror’s process for construction completion, including as-built drawings, shop drawings, and contract closeout.

Note: Fast-tracking is defined as a project delivery strategy where some parts of construction may begin before the design is completed.

6.1.3 Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and Teaming Arrangements

For purposes of evaluating Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Experience from contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror, and/or Teaming Arrangement as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), the offering JV 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 a JV and/or Teaming Arrangement must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) with the proposal. A copy of the offeror's signed joint venture agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement shall be submitted with the proposal.

Projects performed by Joint Ventures other than the Prime Contractor will not be evaluated unless the Prime Contractor, Joint Venture Member, or Teaming Arrangement Member was a part of the Joint Venture performing the submitted project. These projects will only be considered if the project was performed by a Joint Venture that is registered in SAM with its own UEI of which the offering Prime Contractor, Joint Venture Member(s), or Teaming Arrangement member(s) were part.

In addition to the joint venture agreement, small business offerors submitting a proposal as a Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor- Protégé agreement.

Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror and/or Teaming Arrangement as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement or signed Teaming Arrangement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV and/or Teaming Arrangement for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV or Teaming Arrangement may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV and/or Teaming Arrangement shall not exceed the page limit identified in 6.1.1 above. Offerors may include experience of their JV members or teaming partners as supported by a signed JV agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement as appropriate. If the offeror fails to include a signed JV agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement, the Government will not consider information regarding JV Members or the Teaming Partners in evaluation of their proposal.

All Joint Ventures and/or Teaming Arrangements must comply with Section 7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and Teaming Arrangements of this solicitation to be considered.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Technical Approach as follows:

Capability and Experience with Water Resiliency Projects: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of execution requirements for water resiliency projects. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of coordination requirements for water utility construction, permitting, and conveyance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submitted experience to determine the extent to which it demonstrates technical complexity in comparable to projects contemplated by this MATOC.

Additional consideration may be given for the following:

• Individual projects that contain two or more scope components listed above in 6.1.1(ii)b

• Projects that contain one or more size components of larger sizes than listed above in 6.1.1(ii)c

• Experience with water utility projects that demonstrate significant coordination with one or more public water utility provider, including but not limited to, successful conveyance of a completed project to the water utility provider.

• Offerors that utilize Prime Offeror/JV member experience to demonstrate water resiliency project experience may be rated more favorably.

Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. This includes evaluation of the designer’s role in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including key roles during construction. Proposals demonstrating active involvement of construction personnel in the design process may be rated more favorably. Likewise, proposals demonstrating exceptional participation by the designer of record during construction may be rated more favorably. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s system for tracking design during construction.

7. Volume II – Pro Forma Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.1 Tab A – Standard Form 1442.

• Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit the Standard Form 1442.

• 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 signed.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and Teaming Arrangements

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

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

All offerors may enter into a Teaming Arrangement with one or more subcontractors and submit an offer as a Teaming Arrangement. Offerors submitting a proposal as a Teaming Arrangement shall submit a copy of the written agreement between the offeror and its subcontractor(s) through a written agreement between the parties that sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition;

In accordance with 13 CFR 121.103(b)(9), A small business contractor may enter into a Small Business Teaming Arrangement with one or more small business subcontractors and submit an offer as a small business without regard to affiliation, so long as each team member is small for the size standard assigned to the contract or subcontract.

In accordance with FAR 52.207-6, Small business offerors submitting a proposal as a Small Business Teaming Arrangement shall submit a copy of the written agreement between the offeror and its small business subcontractor(s) through a written agreement between the parties that –

(A) Is specifically referred to as a "Small Business Teaming Arrangement"; and

(B) Sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition;

Small business teaming arrangements may include two business concerns in a mentor-protégé relationship in the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (see section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 4901 note prec.)) when both the mentor and the protégé are small.

There is no exception to joint venture size affiliation for offers received from teaming arrangements under the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program.

• Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the proposal compliance review and will not be rated. Joint Venture Agreements, Mentor-Protégé agreements, Teaming Arrangements, and/or Small Business Teaming Arrangements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations and/or provision 52.207-6 in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture and/or Teaming Arrangement, submit this information for all joint venture and/or Teaming Arrangement members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for projects up to the task order limit of the awarded contract (as identified in FAR Clause 52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995)). Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company. Bonding information shall include the offerors current single and aggregate performance and payment bond limits.

Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the proposal compliance review at Section

3.2 and will not be rated. For purposes of evaluation, the offeror is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

• Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit the following information for itself, including all members of any signed Joint Venture Agreement and/or signed Teaming Arrangement submitted with the proposal:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

• A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

b) As part of this proposal, offerors are required to identify an Architect/Engineer Designer of Record (A/E DOR). The offeror shall submit the name, address, and UEI number for any and all A-E subcontractors identified in the proposal. The A/E DOR identified in this section of the offeror’s proposal must be used for the MATOC contract award resulting from this solicitation.

c) The offeror shall submit one completed copy of the included Representations and Certifications in Section 00 45 00.

• Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the proposal compliance check 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.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

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

E

VG

S

M

U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d)…