W912QR24R0059-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Solicitation W912QR24R0059 for the Design-Build – Telecommunications Infrastructure Repair by Replacement at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Center (ARC) in Arlington Heights, IL, is hereby modified as follows:

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE:

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 35

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 W912QR24R0059

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

30-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:

W912QR24R0059-0002

W912QR24R0059

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been modified:

BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

Solicitation W912QR24R0059 for the Design-Build – Telecommunications Infrastructure Repair by Replacement at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Center (ARC) in Arlington Heights, IL, is hereby modified as follows:

a. Wage Determination IL20240009, dated 7/14/2024, Revision 3 is hereby replaced in its entirety with the current revision IL20240009, dated 07/26/2024, Revision 5 and must be adhered to.

b. The following sections has been replaced in its entirety:

Section 00 22 16 5.1.2 (Submission Requirements)

c. The submission date IS extended. Acknowledgment of receipt of this amendment and proposals are due on 7 August 2024 at 2:00 PM ET.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Aug-2024 02:00 PM to 07-Aug-2024 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one (1) contractor for the telecommunications infrastructure upgrade of an U.S. Army Reserve Center campus located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the

669569 responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.2 This project is for a Design-Build, Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. W912QR24R0059, to provide design and construction services to upgrade existing facilities IT network infrastructure (200,000 SF) at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Center (ARC) campus in Arlington Heights, Illinois. There are six (6) buildings on this site, four (4) buildings in the base bid and two (2) buildings will be an options.

Some rooms may need to be constructed in the facilities to support the IT requirements. The project will include design of the facilities to meet current specifications to meet current IT infrastructure requirements.

Inside and outside plant upgrades may be necessary. After design is complete, the contractor will then need to upgrade the infrastructure in the facility while keeping the buildings fully operational. The Contract Duration is estimated at 550 calendar days from Notice to Proceed (NTP).

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

1.4 The target ceiling for contract award for construction is approximately $1,950,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government may not be able to award a contract in excess of this ceiling. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

2. Submittal of offers.

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

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the Electronic Submittal Instructions via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District, not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone. Hard copy of proposals will not be accepted. Offerors are encouraged to save a copy of their confirmation of upload in the event there is a technical issue to show proof of upload.

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

Proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

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

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

Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach o Management Plan o Design Approach

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

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT

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

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

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

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

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial

Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

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

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

Prime Contractor Equally important to A/E Designer of Record A/E Designer of Record (DOR) Equally important to Prime Contractor

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach 2nd

Management Plan Equally important to Design Approach Design Approach Equally important to Management Plan

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

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

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

TABLE 3

Combined Technical / Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

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

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.6 Definitions

1. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

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

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

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

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

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor:

Provide descriptions of up to two (2) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

AMENMENT 0002****************************************************************************

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be a minimum of 120,,000 Square Feet (SF) or greater of full IT infrastructure upgrades. This square footage may be a combination of multiple facilities, provided all work was completed under a single contract action.

***************************************************************************AMENDMENT 0002

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall be Design-Build renovation or new construction with significant

IT infrastructure work performed, to include but are not limited to, National Guard Armories, Army Reserve Centers, Armed Forces Training Centers, Office Complexes, Vehicle Maintenance Shops, and Education Facilities. Work such as installation/upgrades/repairs of minor features, for instance security camera installations or installations of card readers, are NOT considered full building/facility IT upgrades.

5.1.4 The Prime Contractor must have self-performed at least twenty (20%) percent of the direct contract labor

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

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

a) Experience with construction or renovation projects for USACE

b) Experience with USARC G-6, U.S. Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC)

Infrastructure Technical Criteria and/or the Army Reserve Design Guide

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

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

f) Dollar value of the project

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

h) Customer primary point of contact (POC) and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address)

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings (i.e., CPARS evaluations/assessments, Past Performance

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

5.1.8 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to one (1) project that has been constructed (i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last six (6) 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 solicited 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 and 5.1.7.

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 on submitted projects that contain the following features:

a) Experience with the design of construction or renovation projects for USACE

b) Experience with USARC G-6, U.S. Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC) Infrastructure Technical Criteria and/or the Army Reserve Design Guide

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 agreement. 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 joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture 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 member of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number 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 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 (2) or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total number of projects submitted by the JV will not exceed two (2) projects for the prime contractor and one (1) project for the A/E Designer of Record (DOR).

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. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP.

Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings in Table 1 of Section 4.5.

5.2.2 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 reserves the right to review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. 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 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 equal to each other in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Management Plan: Provide a Management Plan narrative for the project that describes:

How your labor, resources, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project.

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

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

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

6.1.2 Design Approach: Based on the project budget and scope, provide a design approach narrative describing the following: your design process, design firm and the key team member of your design team . At a minimum, the narrative shall address the timing/schedule and process(s) necessary to complete the major construction milestones and tasks, as well as demonstrate the offeror’s and DOR’s experience with USACE projects and USARC G6 Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC) technical design requirements as indicated below:

Design process as it fits into the overall schedule.

Key team members on the design team to include (i.e., Construction PM, Design PM, Registered

Communication Distribution Designer (RCDD), etc.)

Experience with construction/renovation projects for USACE

Experience with the Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC) technical design requirements used by United States Army Reserve Command (USARC) G6.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8), 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. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

NOTE 2: The Management Plan and Design Approach will be weighted approximately equal to each other in the rating of the overall Technical Approach.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Technical Approach narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during design and construction of the project. The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for managing a successful project. The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified in paragraph 6.1.2 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the design and follow the required specifications. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the design process, key requirements, and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the design and construction within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

Plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the Ft. Sheridan Army Reserve campus project, as well as a clear understanding of the Army Reserve Network Enterprise Center (ARNEC) technical design requirements and USACE construction execution processes, may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. Demonstrate how you plan to manage this project in particular and what critical tasks in this solicitation you feel need more attention to help mitigate risk.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

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

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture 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) number) 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 set-aside acquisitions and/or 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.

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:

1) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

3) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value If the offeror is a Joint Venture, submit this information for all Joint Venture members.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEID/DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

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

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

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. THE

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

FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING THAT BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

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

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

responsiveness to administrative reports; efforts to keep lines of communication open)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution, and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage, and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability, or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-

E VG S M U N

up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets, and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If a Government contract, has it been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying the COR, PM, or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this Contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments that may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

WAGE DETERMINATIONS

AMENDMENT 0002********************************************************************

"General Decision Number: IL20240009 07/26/2024

Superseded General Decision Number: IL20230009

State: Illinois

Construction Types: Building, Heavy, Highway and Residential

County: Cook County in Illinois.

BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL, HEAVY, AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS (does not include landscape projects).

Note: Contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act are generally required to pay at least the applicable minimum wage rate required under Executive Order 14026 or Executive Order 13658.

Please note that these Executive Orders apply to covered contracts entered into by the federal government that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but do not apply to contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(1).

|If the contract is entered |. Executive Order 14026 | |into on or after January 30, | generally applies to the | |2022, or the contract is | contract. | |renewed or extended (e.g., an |. The contractor must pay | |option is exercised) on or | all covered workers at | |after January 30, 2022: | least $17.20 per hour (or | | | the applicable wage rate | | | listed on this wage | | | determination, if it is | | | higher) for all hours | | | spent performing on the | | | contract in 2024. | |If the contract was awarded on|. Executive Order 13658 | |or between January 1, 2015 and| generally applies to the | |January 29, 2022, and the | contract. | |contract is not renewed or |. The contractor must pay all| |extended on or after January | covered workers at least | |30, 2022: | $12.90 per hour (or the | | | applicable wage rate listed| | | on this wage determination,| | | if it is higher) for all | | | hours spent performing on | | | that contract in 2024. |

The applicable Executive Order minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. If this contract is covered by one of the Executive Orders and a classification considered necessary for performance of work on the contract does not appear on this wage determination, the contractor must still submit a conformance request.

Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the Executive Orders is available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/05/2024 1 02/09/2024

2 02/23/2024 3 06/14/2024 4 07/05/2024 5 07/12/2024 6 07/26/2024

ASBE0017-001 06/01/2024

Rates Fringes

ASBESTOS WORKER/INSULATOR

Includes the application of all insulating materials, protective coverings, coatings, and finishes to all types of mechanical systems..........$ 55.02 35.75 Fire Stop Technician.............$ 44.02 32.76

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL…