W912QR25R0028 - AMDT 0004.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 No. W912QR25R0028 for the construction of the Advanced Skills Trainee Barracks at Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area is hereby modified as follow s:

See summary of changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 102

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 W912QR25R0028

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Mar-2025

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 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.

U0004

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Jul-2025

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:

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 0004

Amendment 0004 - SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. Section 00 22 12 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA has been revised and replaced in its entirety:

a. The requirement for a Project Labor Agreement has been added to the solicitation within

Volume II – Pro Forma.

2. The following clauses/provisions have been added:

a. 52.222-33 Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement – JAN 2024

b. 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement – JAN 2024

3. The following wage determination has been replaced:

a. CA20250018 – Modification 6 (21 March 2025) has been replaced with CA20250018 – Modification 11 (11 July 2025).

4. The solicitation response date/time has been updated from 29 April 2025 at 1400 Eastern to 13 August 2025 at 1400 Eastern.

5. All amendments must be acknowledged with submitted proposal.

6. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Apr-2025 02:00 PM to 13-Aug-2025 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

00 22 12 – PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the construction of the Advanced Skills Trainee

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

This project is for a Design-Bid-Build, Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. W912QR25R0028, for a 45,000 SF (SF) Advanced Skills Trainee Barracks at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California.

Primary facilities include a permanently constructed barracks building with two and three person rooms to house students attending both schools. The project will include information systems, fire protection and alarm systems, video surveillance system, energy monitoring control systems connection, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Supporting facilities include site development, utilities and connections, lighting, paving, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, information systems, landscaping, and signage. Sustainability, energy, and cyber security measures will be provided as will furnishings, equipment, and accessibility for the disabled. Antiterrorism force protection physical security measures will be incorporated into the design including maximum standoff distances from roads, parking areas and vehicle unloading areas. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 40 years in accordance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria 1-200-02 including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.

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. Proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

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

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan Volume I – Factor III: Schedule Narrative

* 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 Volume II – Tab E: Project Labor Agreement

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

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1. Source Selection Evaluation Board

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 subfactors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated in paragraph 1.2 above.

3.2. Evaluation Process

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

3.2.1. Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review:

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

3.2.2. Past Performance/Technical Evaluation:

The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Section 4.6, 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 – Management Plan and Factor III – Schedule Narrative 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 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. Methodology:

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

4.2. Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3. Volume I – Factor II – Management Plan 2nd

4.4. Volume I – Factor III – Schedule Narrative 3rd

4.5. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Not Rated Schedule 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 Tab E Project Labor Agreement Not Rated

4.6. Ratings

Evaluators will apply the one 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.

4.7 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 subfactor 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.

11. Best Value. Means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

12. Relevancy. As it pertains to past performance information, is 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.

13. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, is 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.

*NOTE*Relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror will be considered. Affiliates (as defined by FAR 2.101) means associated business concerns or individuals if, directly or indirectly either one controls or can control the other; or third-party controls or can control both. Affiliation will be determined in accordance with 13 CFR 121.103. In determining whether affiliation exists, the Government will consider the totality of the circumstances and may find affiliation even though no single factor is sufficient to constitute affiliation. If an offeror is submitting the past performance of an affiliate, the offeror must submit proof of affiliation pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103.

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

*NOTE: Construction of pre-engineered buildings is not considered similar in size or scope to this project. Renovation work is not considered similar in size or scope to this project.

5.1.2. Projects considered similar in size shall be a minimum of 35,000 square feet. This square footage may be a combination of multiple facilities, provided all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3. Projects considered similar in scope to this project include new construction of multi-story barracks, hotels, dormitories, and apartment buildings.

5.1.4. The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

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

a) Demonstrated new construction experience with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

b) Demonstrated experience in achieving LEED Silver or greater on projects.

5.1.6. The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed. If project is not yet complete, provide a description of work remaining to be completed.

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

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

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

f) Dollar value of the project

g) Whether the project was design/build or design/bid/build

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact 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. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

*NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal.

Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed three (3).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

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.

5.2.2. The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph

5.1 above. The Government will at a minimum review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including CPARS. 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 may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance, including for projects other than those submitted by the offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through FAPPIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan:

6.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Describe the duties of the key project delivery staff (e.g. PM, Superintendent, CQCSM, SSHO) and how this team will work together to deliver the project.

Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating risk during contract performance.

A commissioning plan to include an outline of systems to be commissioned, commissioning timeline, and documents to be provided.

*NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Management Plan factor.

Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. Management Plan 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 construction of the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB in accordance with Table 3, Technical/Risk Assessment Rating. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the Army Reserve project commissioning requirements may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

7. Volume I – Factor III: Schedule Narrative

7.1. Submission Requirements:

7.1.1. Based on the project budget and scope, provide a written schedule narrative (only) describing the construction sequence/process for successful completion of each phase of the project (Construction, Commissioning, and Close-Out) within the duration shown in FAR 52.211-10. Offerors may propose a shorter duration for completion, but Government review times shall not be shortened. At a minimum, the Schedule Narrative shall address the process for completing the major construction milestones and tasks indicated below:

Construction Phasing Fast Tracking (if utilized) Pre-Construction Submittals and Government Review Long Lead Items/Times Commissioning Activities and Critical Submittals As-Builts Closeout

*Note: There is a page limit of five (5) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for narrative portion of this factor. Any information that exceeds this page limit will not be evaluated.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria:

7.2.1. The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified in paragraph 7.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the major milestones and tasks and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the contract within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. Schedules offering duration less than that shown in 52.211-10 may receive a higher rating if the proposed schedule is shown to be realistic and achievable while still addressing the major milestones and tasks required without reducing Government Review time.

*NOTE: The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule narrative using calendar days, not dates.

The Government reserves the right to accept or decline a proposed shorter duration as part of the contract award. Should the Government accept the proposed shorter duration, the contract completion stated in 52.211-10 will be replaced with the offeror’s proposed completion duration.

8. Volume II – Price and Proforma Information

8.1. Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule

8.1.1. Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00 10 00, Price Breakout Schedule. Both forms are included in Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation.

8.1.2. 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.

8.2. Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

8.2.1. Submission Requirements:

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

8.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

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

8.3.1. 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.

8.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

rated. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

8.4. Tab D – Pre-Award Information

8.4.1. Submission Requirements:

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

Certification.

B) The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

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

8.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

rated.

8.5 Tab E – Project Labor Agreement

8.5.1 Submission Requirements:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PROJECT LABOR

AGREEMENT. All offerors shall submit a Project Labor Agreement in accordance with FAR Solicitation Provision 52.222-33 and FAR Clause 52.222-34. To be acceptable, the agreements must meet the requirements in FAR 22.504(b).

8.5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Submitted information will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with FAR 22.504. To be acceptable, Project Labor Agreements must:

(1) Bind all contractors and subcontractors engaged in construction on the construction project to comply with the project labor agreement;

(2) Allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements;

(3) Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;

(4) Set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the term of the project labor agreement; and

(5) Provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health.

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 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.

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION

OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(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)

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)

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

W912QR25R0028

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

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-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.

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

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.)

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).

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)

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

SECTION 00 70 00 - CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

The following have been added by reference:

52.222-33 Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement JAN 2024 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement JAN 2024

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

WAGE DETERMINATIONS

"General Decision Number: CA20250018 07/11/2025

Superseded General Decision Number: CA20240018

State: California

Construction Types: Building, Heavy (Heavy and Dredging) and Highway

Counties: Alameda, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties in California.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; DREDGING PROJECTS (does not include hopper dredge work); HEAVY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include water well drilling); HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 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 $17.75 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 2025. | |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: | $13.30 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 2025. |

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 01/03/2025 1 01/10/2025 2 02/07/2025 3 02/21/2025 4 02/28/2025 5 03/07/2025 6 03/21/2025 7 05/23/2025 8 06/06/2025 9 06/27/2025 10 07/04/2025 11 07/11/2025

ASBE0016-004 05/01/2024

AREA 1: CALAVERAS, FRESNO, KINGS, MADERA, MARIPOSA, MERCED,

MONTEREY, SAN BENITO, SAN JOAQUIN, SANTA CRUZ, STANISLAUS &

TOULMNE COUNTIES

AREA 2: ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO & SANTA

CLARA COUNTIES

Rates Fringes

Asbestos Removal worker/hazardous material handler (Includes preparation, wetting, stripping, removal, scrapping, vacuuming, bagging and disposing of all insulation materials from mechanical systems, whether they contain asbestos or not) Area 1......................$ 34.56 11.40 Area 2......................$ 36.53 9.27

ASBE0016-008 01/01/2024

AREA 1: ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, MONTEREY, SAN BENITO, SAN

FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA, & SANTA CRUZ

AREA 2: CALAVERAS, COLUSA, FRESNO, KINGS, MADERA, MARIPOSA,

MERCED, SAN JOAQUIN, STANISLAUS, & TUOLUMNE

Asbestos Workers/Insulator (Includes the application of all insulating materials, Protective Coverings, Coatings, and Finishes to all types of mechanical systems) Area 1......................$ 84.76 25.07 Area 2......................$ 64.56 25.07

BOIL0549-001 01/01/2021

AREA 1: ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO & SANTA

CLARA COUNTIES

AREA 2: REMAINING COUNTIES

BOILERMAKER

Area 1......................$ 49.62 41.27 Area 2......................$ 45.60 38.99

BRCA0003-001 08/01/2024

Rates Fringes

MARBLE FINISHER..................$ 42.06 19.80

BRCA0003-003 08/01/2024

MARBLE MASON.....................$ 61.72 30.31

BRCA0003-005 05/01/2024

Rates Fringes

BRICKLAYER

( 1) Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced....$ 51.17 25.80 ( 7) San Francisco, San Mateo.......................$ 57.02 28.50 ( 8) Alameda, Contra Costa, San Benito, Santa Clara.......................$ 56.94 26.28 ( 9) Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Toulumne....................$ 52.76 25.01

(16) Monterey, Santa Cruz...$ 54.18 27.82

BRCA0003-008 07/01/2024

Rates Fringes

TERRAZZO FINISHER................$ 44.93 20.98

TERRAZZO WORKER/SETTER...........$ 60.58 29.79

BRCA0003-011 04/01/2024

AREA 1: Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz

AREA 2: Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne

AREA 3: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced

TILE FINISHER

Area 1......................$ 37.75 19.28 Area 2......................$ 34.76 19.22 Area 3......................$ 32.68 18.32 Tile Layer Area 1......................$ 59.92 22.62 Area 2......................$ 55.17 22.52 Area 3......................$ 50.28 22.05

CARP0022-001 07/01/2023

San Francisco County

Carpenters Bridge Builder/Highway Carpenter...................$ 60.39 33.52 Hardwood Floorlayer, Shingler, Power Saw Operator, Steel Scaffold & Steel Shoring Erector, Saw Filer.......................$ 60.54 33.52 Journeyman Carpenter........$ 60.39 33.52 Millwright..................$ 60.49 35.