W912QR24R0052-0001.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 27

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 W912QR24R0052

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jul-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

15-Jul-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:

W912QR24R0052-0001

W912QR24R0052

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. W912QR24R0052 for the Design-Build Construction of the Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL) Network Enterprise Center (NEC) located at Fort Hunter Liggett in Jolon, CA is hereby amended as follows:

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

PHASE ONE, Paragraph 5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance has been revised for the following:

(1) Subparagraphs 5.1.2 has been revised to change the requirement for the minimum size in square feet of new construction from 20,000 square feet or greater of new construction to 16,000 square feet or greater of new construction.

(2) Subparagraph 5.1.3 has been revised to remove all references to “multi-story.”

(3) Subparagraph 5.1.6.d) has been revised to remove the requirement to provide the size in SF of the full building IT infrastructure work performed.

B. SECTION 00 22 18 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE TWO, Paragraph 5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance, Subparagraph 5.1.1 has been revised to remove reference to “multi-story renovation” and replace with “new construction.”

C. Offerors must acknowledge all Amendments.

D. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

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 a new Network

Enterprise Center at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. This will be a Design/Build Construct a Network Enterprise Center (NEC) on Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. Project constructs a standard design Information Systems Facility (ISF), organizational vehicle parking, open storage area and building information systems. The facility includes space for a command center for operations support with video teleconferencing capability, administration, reception, network administrators, operations floor, tech lab, operations center, administrative offices, customer service center, technical assistance for information technology, controlled humidity warehouse, loading dock with receiving zone, shower/locker rooms, and break rooms.

Supporting facilities include utilities, fire protection and alarm systems, Utility Monitoring Control Systems (UMCS) connection, uninterrupted power supply, redundant mechanical and electrical systems, heating and cooling, and pavements, walks, and curbs. Site improvements will include site clearing, grading, and landscaping.

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, a target 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 Electronic 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. Hard copy of proposals will not be accepted.

Offerors are encouraged to save a copy of their PIEE confirmation of upload in the event there is a technical issue to show proof of upload.

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 Approximately Equal to A/E DOR

• A/E Designer of Record (DOR) Approximately 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 the project. If commissioning is not finalized, provide its current status. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size are projects that include a minimum of 20,000 16,000 square feet or greater of new construction.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include new construction of multi-story facilities, such as:

• Army Reserve Centers;

• Armed Forces Training Centers (ARC);

• Information Systems Facilities;

• National Guard;

• Federal Agency Office Buildings;

• Military Headquarters Buildings

• Higher Education Facilities such as High Schools and University Buildings (not including residential halls or dormitories); or

• Multi-Story Office Complexes.

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 new construction to be considered similar in scope.

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), exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

5.1.5 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 Design/Build projects.

c) Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, NAVFAC, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact)

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

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 (includes commissioning activities) 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.

b. If commissioning is not finalized, provide its current status.

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility. In particular, also provide the scope of the IT infrastructure work performed.

d) Size of the project in SF of the facility and the size of the full building IT infrastructure work in SF, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both

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

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)

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

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.

5.1.8 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 5.1.6.

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.

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

a) Experience with the design of construction of Information Systems Facilities.

b) Experience with U.S. Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC) Infrastructure

Technical Criteria

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

Reserve Design Guide.

d) 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 approximately equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

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

6.1 Submission Requirements:

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

6.1.2 Organization: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s Design-Build team and how their resources will be utilized in order to deliver this design-build project. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team (i.e., key members) and explain how the design and construction process will be managed throughout the entirety of the project life cycle; at a minimum, this shall address the processes for the Design (e.g., Review Process, Fast Track, etc.), Construction (e.g., Subcontractor Management, Commissioning, etc.), and Close-Out (e.g., As Built, O&M Manuals, etc.).

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

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) 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:

The Government will review and identify the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal.

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

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

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

7. Volume II – Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UE ID/DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

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

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. 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.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – PHASE 2

SECTION 00 22 18

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR

PHASE TWO (II)

**Section 00 22 18 is being issued for reference only during Phase I and subject to change when Phase II is issued**

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for Design and Construction for a new Network

Enterprise Center (NEC) at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. This will be a Design/Build project to construct a Network Enterprise Center (NEC) on Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. The project will consist of an Information Systems Facility (ISF), organizational vehicle parking, open storage area and building information systems. The facility includes space for a command center for operations support with video teleconferencing capability, administration, reception, network administrators, operations floor, tech lab, operations center, administrative offices, customer service center, technical assistance for information technology, controlled humidity warehouse, loading dock with receiving zone, shower/locker rooms, and break rooms. Supporting facilities include utilities, fire protection and alarm systems, Utility Monitoring Control Systems (UMCS) connection, uninterrupted power supply, redundant mechanical and electrical systems, heating and cooling, and pavements, walks, and curbs. Site improvements will include site clearing, grading, and landscaping.

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, a target 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.

1.3 This solicitation provides for payment of a stipend to the unsuccessful Phase II Offerors who are not selected for award of the resulting Design-Build contract. Each unsuccessful Phase II offeror are eligible to receive a stipend provided that the unsuccessful Phase II offeror’s full proposal is evaluated as at least ‘Acceptable’ in all Volume I rated factors. Payment of the stipend will be initiated 14 calendar days after contract award, provided the award has not been protested. The stipend amount per unsuccessful offeror will be determined and finalized prior to issuing the Phase II amendment.

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. The Phase II proposal will be a combination of a written proposal and an in-person oral presentation.

The content and details of the oral presentation will be issued with the Phase II amendment.

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 for the written proposal 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 1: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (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.

*NOTE 2: Volume I, Factors I, II, and III will include an in-person Oral Presentation to the Government evaluation team for the offeror to present their design narrative, management plan, and schedule narrative describing the construction sequence / process for successful completion of each phase of the project.

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)

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 Approximately equal to Factors II and III. More important than Factor IV.

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

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

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

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…