W912QR24R0015_Specs_Vol1-0001.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

(See Continuation Page)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 24

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 W912QR24R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-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 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

25-Mar-2024 CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912QR24R0015_Specs_Vol1-0001

W912QR24R0015

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

Solicitation No. W912QR24R0015 for the Design-Bid-Build Construction of an Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) and Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS) at Camp Pendleton, CA is hereby amended as follows:

A. The following Specifications have been replaced in their entirety:

00 02 00 TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 80 00.00 06 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

01 32 01.00 06 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 29.00 06 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 26.00 06 GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 45 04.10 06 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19.00 06 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND PERMITS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 91 19 BUILDING ENCLOSURE COMMISSIONING

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

02 81 00 TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

02 82 00 ASBESTOS REMEDIATION

02 83 00 LEAD REMEDIATION

02 84 16 HANDLING OF LIGHTING BALLASTS AND LAMPS CONTAINING PCBs

AND MERCURY

02 84 33 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

(PCBs)

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 42 13.00 10 PLANT-PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS FOR BELOW GRADE

CONSTRUCTION

03 45 00 PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 52 00 METAL RAILINGS

07 05 23 PRESSURE TESTING AN AIR BARRIER SYSTEM FOR AIR TIGHTNESS

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

08 36 19 VERTICAL LIFT DOORS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

13 34 19 METAL BUILDING SYSTEMS

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION

22 05 48.00 20 MECHANICAL SOUND, VIBRATION, AND SEISMIC CONTROL

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 30 00 HVAC AIR DISTRIBUTION

25 10 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (UMCS) FRONT END

AND INTEGRATION

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

27 10 00.00 48 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

28 13 00.00 48 PHYSICAL ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM,

ADDRESSABLE

31 00 00.00 06 EARTHWORK

31 62 50 DENSIFIED AGGREGATE PIERS

32 01 19.61 SEALING OF JOINTS IN RIGID PAVEMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE FOR FLEXIBLE PAVING

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

32 12 16.16 ROAD-MIX ASPHALT PAVING

32 15 00 AGGREGATE SURFACING

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 82 00.00 48 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

41 22 13.15 BRIDGE CRANES, OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, UNDER RUNNING

TROLLEY

B. The following PLAN SHEETS have been replaced in their entirety:

CS101 PHASE 1 – SITE PLAN

T-101 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - FIRST FLOOR PLAN

T-505 TELECOMMUNICATIONS – DETAILS

C. The following PLAN SHEETS have been added in their entirety:

EXISTING ARMY RESERVE CENTER AS BUILTS

D. The following documents have been added in their entirety:

01 33 29.00 06 ATTACHMENT A HIGH PERFORMANCE AND SUSTAINABLE

BUILDING CHECKLIST

01 33 29.00 06 ATTACHMENT B LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST

02 82 00.01 ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF PROPERTY (ECP)

REPORT

E. SF 1442, Block 10 CONTINUATION is updated to clarify the applicable Time Zone for the offer due date and time specified in Block 13.A.

F. Section 00 21 00, PROJNET INSTRUCTIONS, NOTES, line number 3 is amended to revise the date

ProjNet is disabled for entering technical inquiries and questions, and the date closed for Government responses.

G. Section 00 22 16, PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITATAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS, Subsection

2.4, second bullet is corrected from "Volume II– Factor II: Management Approach" to "Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach."

H. Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications fill-in form is corrected to include Veteran-Owned

Small Business under the Business Size options.

I. Offerors must acknowledge all Amendments.

J. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been modified:

BLOCK 10 CONTINUATION

Technical inquiries and questions relating to the proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://projnet.org/projnet. Please see Section 00 21 00, ProjNet Instructions / Offeror’s Questions and Comments for further instructions.

The Government is requiring electronic submission of proposals. Please follow the provided instructions precisely.

Please see Section 00 21 00, Proposal Submission Instructions.

An organized Site Visit will be held. Please see FAR 52.236-27 ALT 1 for Site Visit information.

The term bid and proposal are used interchangeably in industry and may be used interchangeably throughout this Solicitation.

Box 13 is marked as 0 sealed offer copies due to this solicitation requiring full electronic proposals.

The offer due date and time specified in Block 13.A. is in Eastern Time (ET).

Please note, page numbering in this document may not be accurate.

All days are to be considered calendar days, unless otherwise noted.

http://projnet.org/projnet

PROJNET INSTRUCTIONS

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. As noted below, Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation.

To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system.

The Solicitation Number is: W912QR24R0015

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 87UCX2-3VIJUQ

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry.

Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

http://www.projnet.org/ProjNet

NOTES:

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form (SF) 30. In the case of any conflicts, the solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary.

3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds will be disabled on

10 April 2024. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system after 16 April 2024.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the construction of a collocated AMSA and

VMS located in Camp Pendleton, California. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.2 This project is for a Design-Bid-Build, Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. W912QR24R0015, for a 15,000 Square Feet (SF) collocated AMSA and VMS on Camp Pendleton, CA. Supporting facilities include land clearing, vehicle wash rack/platform, bi-level equipment loading ramp, fencing, general site improvements and utility connections. Accessibility for the disabled will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 40 years in accordance with DoD's Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1-200-

02) including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.

Dispose/Demolish four (4) buildings at Camp Pendleton, CA (6,774 Total SF). Air Conditioning (Estimated 25 Tons).

1.3 The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer or to reject all offers.

1.4 The target ceiling for contract award for construction is $15,000,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government may not be able to award a contract in excess of this ceiling. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the Electronic Submittal Instructions via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District, not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard

Form 1442. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone. Hard copy of proposals will not be accepted. Offerors are encouraged to save a copy of their confirmation of upload in the event there is a technical issue to show proof of upload.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers.

Proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I shall be submitted in its own separate Adobe PDF file and shall include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

• Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach o Sub-factor A: Management Plan o Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative o Sub-factor C: Commissioning Plan

*NOTE: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT

(PIEE) SOLICITATION MODULE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile, email or DoD SAFE submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the PIEE Solicitation Module (https://piee.eb.mil/). The PIEE Solicitation module application is the Department of Defense’s core tool for facilitating full utilization of electronic processing of data and documents, providing timestamped submission of contractor proposals for DoD Contracting offices, and is designed to support large file sizes (1.9 GB per file, with no limit on the number of files) that would normally be too large to send via email. PIEE user accounts are required.

The Solicitation’s Electronic Proposal Submission instructions, found in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation, provides basic instructions on navigating to the PIEE website and establishing a user account, as well as instructions on electronic submission of proposals in the PIEE Solicitation Module. When posting the Solicitation via the PIEE Solicitation Module, the solicitation is transmitted to the System for Award Management (https://sam.gov/).

Interested offerors may access the links transmitted to SAM to directly retrieve the solicitation attachments from the PIEE Solicitation Module, receive web-based training, or obtain registration instructions for the website.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted in its own separate Adobe PDF file and shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule

• 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

NOTE: Volume II shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE Solicitation Module. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the U.S Army Corps of

Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors and sub-factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated in paragraph 1.3 above.

W912QR24R0015_Specs_Vol1-0001 https://piee.eb.mil/ https://sam.gov/

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

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal are received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and can 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 Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Section 4.5, Tables 1 (Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) and Table 2 (Performance Confidence Assessment). The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Each of the three Sub-factors under Factor II – Management Approach will be rated using Table 3 (Combined / Technical Risk Assessment Ratings). Based on the ratings of all three (3) Sub-factors, Factor II – Management Approach will then be given an overall Combined / Technical Risk Assessment rating using Table 3.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority (SSA) will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Management Approach 2nd

Sub-factor A: Management Plan Equally important to Sub-factor B & C

Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative Equally important to Sub-factor A & C

Sub-factor C: Commissioning Plan Equally important to Sub-factor A & B

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement 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 l 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

Combined Technical / Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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 offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of 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 those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

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 sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

10. Performance Confidence Assessment. An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime

Contractor within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. NOTE: Renovation work is not considered similar in size or scope to this project.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be a minimum of 10,000 square feet or greater of New Construction. This square footage may be a combination of multiple facilities, provided all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include New Construction, to include but are not limited to, Area Maintenance Support Activities, Vehicle Maintenance Shops, National Guard Armories, Army Reserve Centers, Armed Forces Training Centers, Office Complexes, and Education Facilities.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least fifteen (15%) percent of the direct contract labor

(including testing and layout personnel), not including the cost of materials or subcontractors, to be considered similar.

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

a) Past performance of New Construction projects for USACE or NAVFAC; and/or

b) Past performance of New Construction projects constructed in California.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Entity ID (UEID)

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete

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

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility

d) Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both

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

f) Dollar value of the project

g) Whether the project was Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build

h) Customer primary point of contact (POC) 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. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is attached for the convenience of offerors. If used, the PPQ must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

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

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. 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. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings in Table 1 of Section 4.5.

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

The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to 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.

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

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach

6.1 Sub-factor A: Management Plan

6.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a Management Plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the Management Plan narrative shall address the following information:

• Describe your process for managing, coordinating and tracking changes that arise during construction.

• Describe your communication process and frequency for progress meetings. To include agenda topics for progress meetings to ensure successful project completion.

• Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. Joint venture offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

NOTE: There is a page limit of five (5) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Plan sub-factor. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Plans will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for managing a successful project. The Management Plan will be evaluated for how well it demonstrates how the offeror plans to manage this project in particular, what critical tasks in this solicitation they believe needs more attention to help mitigate risk, experience managing other USACE projects, and experience using the Resident Management System (RMS).

Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the Pendleton AMSA project may be rated more favorably by the

SSEB.

6.2 Sub-factor B: Schedule Narrative

6.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Based on the project budget and scope, provide a schedule narrative describing the construction sequence / process for successful completion of the project within the duration shown in FAR 52.211-10. At a minimum, the Schedule Narrative shall address the timing and process(s) necessary to complete the major construction milestones and tasks indicated below:

• Pre-Construction Submittals and Review

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Process and timing

• Identify and briefly discuss Long Lead Items

• Commissioning process with critical submittals and review periods

• Project Closeout Planning and Coordination (including Red Zone Meeting)

• IT Installation

• Furniture

• Phasing Plan

• As-Builts

NOTE: There is a page limit of five (5) 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 Schedule Narrative sub-factor.

6.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified in Paragraph 6.2.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the major milestones and tasks and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the contract within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. Schedules offering duration less than that shown in FAR 52.211-10 may receive a higher rating if the proposed narrative is shown to be realistic and achievable while still addressing the major milestones and tasks required without reducing Government Review time.

NOTE: The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule narrative using calendar days, not dates. The Government reserves the right to accept or decline a proposed shorter duration as part of the contract award. Should the Government accept the proposed shorter duration, the contract completion stated in FAR 52.211-10 will be replaced with the offeror’s proposed completion duration.

6.3 Sub-factor C: Commissioning Plan

6.3.1 Submission Requirements:

Identify the Commissioning Firm and/or Specialist(s). Describe how your Commissioning Firm satisfies the requirements of Specification Section 01 46 00.00 06. The narrative must include certifications and qualifications, years of experience, and information demonstrating experience with at least one project of complexity similar to this project. The narrative should include a description of different phases of the commissioning process to show a complete understanding of the commissioning process. The narrative shall also include an outline of systems to be commissioned, commissioning services or activities to be performed, and documents to be provided.

Offerors are advised that any subcontractor submitted for review shall be utilized on the contract for the work required by the evaluation. Evaluation and acceptance of a subcontractor does not relieve any of the conditions required by the plans and specifications. If a subcontractor is unable to perform the work or a replacement is needed, it shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for their approval prior to any work being completed.

NOTE: There is a page limit of five (5) 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 Commissioning Plan Narrative sub-factor. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

6.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified in paragraph 6.3.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the commissioning process within the contract duration and before the furniture install. Plans will also be evaluated based on commissioning specialist and firm qualifications including credentials, experience, and understanding of the project’s commissioning requirements.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

Both forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The price will be evaluated on Base proposal plus all Options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

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

Small Business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture Agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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

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 offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

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

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

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

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

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

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

If the offeror is a Joint Venture, submit this information for all Joint Venture members.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEID/DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS

FORM.

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 rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred from which the Contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 from which the contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 THAT 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…