W912QR24R0021-0001.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 31

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 W912QR24R0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-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

08-Apr-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:

W912QR24R0021-0001

W912QR24R0021

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. W912QR24R0021 for the Design-Build Maintenance & Repair, Army Reserves (MRAR) of Building 505 at Fort Snelling in Minneapolis, MN is hereby amended as follows:

A. Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation, Block 13.A. has been revised from 720 calendar days after receiving Notice to Proceed to 900 calendar days after receiving Notice to Proceed.

B. Section 00 21 00 – Instructions, FAR provision 52.252 -1– Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by

Reference has been revised to correct the address to electronically access solicitation provisions by full text.

C. Section 00 22 16 – Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase One has been revised to replace the following in their entirety:

(1) Paragraph 5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance, Submission Requirements for the Prime Contractor and A/E Designer of Record (DOR), Subparagraphs 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.6, 5.1.7 and 5.1.8

(2) Paragraph 6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build, Subparagraph 6.1 Submission Requirements, NOTE

(3) Paragraph 7. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information, Subparagraph 7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements, 7.2.1 Submission Requirements and Subparagraph 7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

D. Section 00 22 18 – Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II has been revised for the following:

(1) Advise offerors that this section has been issued for reference only as a draft and is subject to change when the Phase II amendment is issued

(2) Paragraph 2. Submittal of Offers, 2.4 Volume I has been amended to delete Volume I - Factor V: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

(3) Paragraph 2. Submittal of Offers, 2.5 Volume II for Phase II has been amended to add Tab C: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

(4) Paragraph 3. Proposal Evaluation Process has been amended to remove reference to the technical evaluation Factor V Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and revise the section numbers associated with the rating tables for Factors I thru IV

(5) Paragraph 4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors has been amended to delete 4.6 Volume I – Factor V: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

(6) Paragraph 4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors has been amended to renumber 4.7 Volume II – Price and Proforma Information to 4.6; 4.8 Ratings has been amended to be renumbered to 4.7;

and 4.9 Definitions has been amended to be renumbered to 4.8.

(7) Paragraph 4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors, 4.7 Volume II – Price and Proforma Information (now renumbered to 4.6) has been amended for the following:

(a) Tab B Subcontracting Plan has been revised from “Not Rated” to “Acceptable/Not Acceptable”

(b) Tab C Project Labor Agreement (PLA) has been added

(8) Paragraph 4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors, 4.7 Ratings (previously numbered as 4.8) been amended to remove Table 6 – Project Labor Agreement Ratings

(9) Paragraph 9. Volume I – Factor V: Project Labor Agreement (PLA) has been deleted

(10) Paragraph 10. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information has been renumbered to 9., with the corresponding subparagraphs renumbered accordingly

(11) Paragraph 10. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information (now renumbered as Paragraph 9.) has been amended to add 9.3 Tab C -– Project Labor Agreement (PLA).

E. All references to “single-sided” pages in Section 00 22 16 and Section 00 22 18 have been removed.

F. Section 00 70 00 – Conditions of the Contract, FAR clause 52.211-10 – Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work has been revised to change completion of the entire work ready for use from 720 calendar days to 900 calendar days from issuance of NTP.

G. Offerors must acknowledge all Amendments.

H. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The contractor period of performance end date has increased by 180 days from 720 days to 900 days.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these addresses(es):

The full text of FAR clauses and provisions can be found at https://www.acquisition.gov.

The full text of DFARS clauses and provisions can be found at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html.

(End of provision) https://www.acquisition.gov/ https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA – PHASE 1

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE ONE

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Design and Construction for the Maintenance &

Repair Army Reserves (MRAR) of an Army Reserve Center (ARC), Fort Snelling Building 505, located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This will be a Design/Build project to repair a failing, 600-member ARC. Building 505 is a 63,115 SF facility that was constructed in 1979 and is used as an Army Reserve Center Training Building. This project will repair failing facility components, extend the economic life of the facility by 25 years, and provide a modern training building that enables readiness for the Army Reserve unit stationed there. Building components and systems to be repaired include the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), electrical distribution, water distribution, fire alarm and suppression systems, ceilings, windows, doors, floor coverings, interior reconfiguration, and interior finishes. The project will also repair the exterior façade and finishes. All hazardous materials (HAZMAT) removed as part of the demolition will be disposed of following all state and federal guidelines.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase II notification. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

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

1.3 This project is subject to availability of funds; funds are not presently available. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.

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 Proposal Submission

Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. Please follow the instructions precisely as proposals must complete the upload no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

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 project. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 0 21 00 of the solicitation. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 The complete Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission

Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

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

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

*NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in

Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements

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

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

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

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Full and Open, Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

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

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

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Paragraph 4.5 Tables 1 and 2. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Paragraph 4.5,Table 3.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

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

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

• Prime Contractor Equal to A/E DOR

• A/E Designer of Record (DOR) Equal to Prime

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach

For Design/Build 2nd

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 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 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 Ratings

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

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 Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.6 Definitions

1. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

2. Relevancy. As it pertains to past performance information, a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

3. 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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

FAR 15.001.

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

11. 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).

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

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to 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 1: Projects that include exclusively new construction will NOT be considered similar in size or scope to the solicited project.

NOTE 2: Projects that include only cosmetic or minor updates (i.e., new flooring, paint, fixtures, etc.) will NOT be considered similar in size or scope to the solicited project.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be complete renovation projects that include a minimum of 45,000 square feet of renovated building.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include Complete Building Renovation of buildings similar to multi-story Army Reserve Centers, Armed Forces Training Centers, National Guard or other Federal Agency Office Buildings, Military Headquarters Buildings, and Higher Education Facilities such as High Schools and University Buildings. Project can also include new construction; however, project scope shall be at least 75% complete building renovation, measured in square footage to be considered similar in scope. If replying with projects that are combined new and renovation construction, clearly delineate (based on square feet) the renovation versus new construction portion and percent (%) of the project.

Construction of pre-engineered buildings does not count toward a project of similar scope or size.

Submitted projects must demonstrate experience with a multi-story renovation to be considered similar in scope.

Complete building renovation includes, but is not limited to, experience with architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, data, fire protection and communication systems renovations.

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

a) Established working relationship with the proposed DOR on previous Design/Build projects.

b) Experience with construction project(s) adjacent to or near an airfield

c) Building construction projects that demonstrate experience with the Fort Snelling military installation

d) Experience with construction project(s) for USACE.

e) Experience with USACE Design/Build Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact) and/or Army Reserve

Design Guide.

f) LEED Silver, Gold, or Platinum Certification on the submitted project, along with documentation supporting that the certification has been achieved.

5.1.5 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) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed

a. Self-Performance must be a minimum of 15% on submitted projects in order to receive any rating higher than Somewhat Relevant (though a Somewhat Relevant rating is not guaranteed), size, scope, recency, and additional considerations notwithstanding.

f) If the projects were Design/Bid or Design/Bid/Build.

g) Whether the project was renovation or new construction (indicate based on Square Footage the renovation versus new construction portion and percent (%) of the project).

h) Dollar Value of Project

i) 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)

5.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by 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 (SF) 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 (JV) agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a Joint Venture (V), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number with the proposal. 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 under Volume II, Tab B of the proposal. (See Section 7.2). Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

5.1.7 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed (i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope (see paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 above). In order to be considered similar, the proposed A/E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one (1) design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor. In addition to the above and below, provide the information requested in paragraph 5.1.5.

The offeror must affirmatively state who their proposed DOR for the project will be, and provide the DOR’s Unique Entity Identification (UEID) number and CAGE Code.

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

a) Experience with the design of construction and/or renovation project(s) adjacent to or near an airfield.

b) Experience with USACE Design/Build Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact) and/or Army Reserve Design Guide.

c) LEED Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification on the submitted project, with supporting documentation demonstrating that this certification was achieved.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. 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 will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. Past performance information retrieved through CPARS, or other sources are not subject to the same evaluation criteria but will instead be reviewed for recent negative performance, trends of negative performance, and any other performance information that may negatively impact the offeror’s Confidence rating.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above in Paragraph 4.5, 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. NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

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

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Collaboration: Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s philosophy and intended technical approach for executing Design-Build projects. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how key members (e.g., Construction PM, Construction Superintendent, Construction Quality Control, SSHO, Design PM, and Design Quality Control) of the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project.

6.1.2 Organization: Describe the firms that compose the offeror’s Design-Build team, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team, explaining how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Design-Build team.

6.1.3 Quality Control: Describe the Design-Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

o Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews.

o Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

o In addition to the required designer-of-record (DOR) roles specified within the RFP for maintaining integrity of the design, describe any other DOR involvement in the quality control process, if any. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Technical Approach Factor.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 Collaboration: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design/Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects.

6.2.2 Organization: The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to successfully execute design/build projects, to include the integration of the Designers of Record and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB.

6.2.3 Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities. The Government will evaluate the strengths of the offeror’s proposed system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

6.3 Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal for the Technical Approach for Factor II to demonstrate their approach for successfully completing the solicited Design/Build project for the Fort Snelling Bldg.

505 MRAR. The SSEB will assign a final, overall adjectival rating using the ratings found in Section 4.5, Table 3 - Combined Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings .

7. Volume II – Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442.

7.1.2 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.

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

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 (UEID) with the proposal.

In addition to the JV agreement,, Small Business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc.)

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. 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.

Small Business Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-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, which must be on the approved Treasury list available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

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

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

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

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

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

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

EVALUATION CRITERIA – PHASE 2

SECTION 00 22 18

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE TWO

(DRAFT)

**Section 00 22 18 is being issued for reference only as a draft during Phase I and is subject to change when the Phase II amendment is issued.**

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Design and Construction for the Maintenance

& Repair Army Reserves (MRAR) of an Army Reserve Center (ARC), Fort Snelling Building 505, located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This will be a Design/Build project to repair a failing, 600-member ARC.

Building 505 is a 63,115 SF facility that was constructed in 1979 and is used as an Army Reserve Center Training Building. This project will repair failing facility components, extend the economic life of the facility by 25 years, and provide a modern training building that enables readiness for the Army Reserve unit stationed there. Building components and systems to be repaired include the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), electrical distribution, water distribution, fire alarm and suppression systems, ceilings, windows, doors, floor coverings, interior reconfiguration, and interior finishes. The project will also repair the exterior façade and finishes. All hazardous materials (HAZMAT) removed as part of the demolition will be disposed of following all state and federal guidelines.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase II notification. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. For Phase II submittals, requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

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

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. For Phase II, requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums.

Innovative, creative, or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly. 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 Proposal Submission

Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. Please follow the instructions precisely as proposals must complete the upload no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

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 project. For Phase II, 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 electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 0 21 00 of the solicitation. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase II shall include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Design Narrative

• Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

• Volume I – Factor III: Schedule Narrative

• Volume I – Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan

*NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II for Phase II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission

Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and shall include the following information:

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

• Volume II – Tab B: Subcontracting Plan

• Volume II – Tab C: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase II essentially consists of four (4) parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, 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 both a technical and price proposal and (for Large Business offerors) a Subcontracting Plan were received.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Phase II Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factors I through III (Design Narrative, Management Plan, and Schedule Narrative) will be rated using Table 4 found in Section 4.7. Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 5 in Section 4.7.

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

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all the 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 Phase II 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. 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. The Government also reserves the right to conduct Clarifications or Communications with offerors as described in FAR 15.306(a) and (b). 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: Design Narrative Equally important to Factors II and III. More important than Factors IV and V.

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan Equally important to Factors I and III. More important than Factors IV and V.

4.4 Volume I – Factor III: Schedule Narrative Equally important to Factors I and II. More important than Factors IV and V.

4.5 Volume I – Factor IV: Small Business Less important than Factors I, Participation Plan II, and III. Equally important to to Factor V.

4.6 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Not Acceptable (Large Business Offerors Only)

Tab C Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Acceptable/Not Acceptable

4.7 Ratings

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

TABLE 4

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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…