W912QR25RA009-0003.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 theoffer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

J 1 55

0003 17 JUL 2025 P2 502297

W912QR

W072 ENDIST LOUISVILLE

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 600 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PL

LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2230

UNITED STATES

BONNY DYLEWSKI, EMAIL: BONNY.C.DYLEWSKI@USACE.ARMY.MIL

SCD: PAS:

W912QR25RA009

05 MAR 2025

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SEE SCHEDULE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

SOLICITATION AMENDMENT NO. 0003

Solicitation No. W912QR25RA009 for the Design-Bid-Build Construction of an Army Reserve Center (ARC) at Dobbins Air Reserve Base (ARB), GA is hereby amended as follows:

A. Section 00 21 00 – Instructions, ProjNet Instructions, Offeror’s Questions and Comments, Notes 3. has been updated to revise the timeframe for when ProjNet will be disabled for entering technical inquiries and when it will be closed to Government responses.

B. Section 00 22 12 – Procedures for Submittal of Offers and Proposal Evaluation Criteria has been replaced in its entirety as specified below:

(1) Subparagraph 2.5 is amended to add Volume II – Tab F: Project Labor Agreement

(PLA)

(2) Subparagraph 4.6 Volume II – Price and Pro Forma Information is amended to add Tab F

Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

(3) Subparagraph 9.6 Tab F – Project Labor Agreement is added.

C. Section 00 70 00 – Conditions of the Contract has been revised to incorporate the following provision and clause by reference:

(1) FAR 52.222-33 Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (Jan 2024)

(2) FAR 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement (May 2010)

D. Section 00 73 00 – Supplementary Conditions, Wage Decision (WD) Number GA20250304 (Building,), Modification Number 3 was published on 05/30/2025 and is hereby incorporated in its entirety and replaces Modification Number 2, dated 04/11/2025.

E. The solicitation response date and time has been extended to 18 August 2025 at 11:00 a.m.

Eastern Time (ET).

F. Offerors must acknowledge all amendments.

G. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Section 00 00 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Time 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Response Due Date 05 May 2025 18 Aug 2025

Section 00 21 00 – Instructions

PROJNET INSTRUCTIONS

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

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

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

The Solicitation Number is: W912QR25RA009 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 89ZGZ7-2IRM8X

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.projnet.org/ProjNet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds will be disabled 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) ten (10) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within five (5) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.

Section 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 (1) contractor for the construction of a multi-story Army

Reserve Center (ARC), Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS), and an Unheated Storage Building (USB) located at Dobbins Air Reserves Base in Marietta, GA. This is a single-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 12 for review and evaluation by the Government. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.2 This project is for a Design-Bid-Build, Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No. W912QR25RA009, for construction of a 600-member Army Reserve Center (ARC), a Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS), and an Unheated Storage Building on Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Atlanta, Georgia (GA). Primary facilities include construction of an 81,331 square feet (SF) ARC Training building, an 8,344 SF Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS), a 3,456 SF Unheated Storage Building (USB). Building designs will comply with the Army Reserve Design Guide and include heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, information systems, fire protection and alarm systems, intrusion detection system, and energy monitoring control systems connection. Supporting facilities include land clearing, paving, walks, curbs, gutters, concrete aprons, landscaping, signage, vehicle wash rack/platform, bi-level equipment loading ramp, fencing, general site improvements and privatized utility connections for electrical distribution, natural gas, water, and wastewater systems. Sustainability, energy, and cyber security measures will be provided as will furnishings, equipment, and accessibility for the disabled. 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's Unified Facilities Criteria 1-200-02 including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance. Contract duration is estimated at 900 calendar days from contract Administrative Notice to Proceed (NTP).

1.3 Funds are not presently available for this acquisition. No contract award will be made under this solicitation until appropriated funds are made available

2. Submittal of offers.

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

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the Electronic Proposal Submission Instructions not later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. 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.

NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

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 electronically in its own separate Adobe PDF file in accordance with the

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

• Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

• Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan

• Volume I – Factor III: Commissioning Plan

• Volume I – Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in its own separate Adobe PDF file in accordance with the

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

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

• Volume II – Tab B: 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: Subcontracting Plan

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

*NOTE 1: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate Volume and Tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

*NOTE 2: 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.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://sam.gov/

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

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

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Full and Open, Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above in Paragraph 1.1.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four (4) 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 and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 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 4.7, Table 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: Commissioning Plan will be rated using Table 3 (Combined/Technical Risk Ratings). Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using Table 4 (Small Business 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 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 (Most Important)

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Management Plan 2nd

4.4 Volume I – Factor III: Commissioning Plan 3rd

4.5 Volume I – Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan 4th (Least Important)

4.6 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

Tab E Subcontracting Plan Acceptable / Unacceptable (Large Business Offerors Only)

Tab F Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Acceptable / Unacceptable

4.7 Ratings

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

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 4

Small Business Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

4.8 Definitions

1. 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.

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

3. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. 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.

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

FAR 15.001.

12. 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).

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) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete the project. If the project is not yet completed, describe the work left to be completed. If the commissioning is not finalized, provide its current status. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size would be projects that include a minimum of 40,000 square feet of new construction.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include New Construction of multi-story buildings to include, but are not limited to:

• Army Reserve Centers

• Armed Forces Training Centers

• National Guard Armories

• Federal Agency Office Buildings

• Military Headquarters Buildings

• Higher Education Facilities such as High Schools and University Buildings

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

*NOTE 1: Construction of Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings does not count toward a project of similar scope or size.

*NOTE 2: Renovation work is not considered similar in size or scope to this project.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least fifteen (15%) percent of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

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

a) Building construction projects that demonstrate experience with a military installation

b) Experience with construction project(s) for USACE

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

d) Experience with construction involving large tree removal, stormwater, and retaining wall site work.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

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

b) Current percentage of construction complete (includes commissioning activities) and the date it was or will be complete

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

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

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, type of work performed, and percentage (%) of work that was self-performed

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

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

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

h) Dollar Value of Project

i. Initial dollar value at contract award

ii. Final dollar value at completion of project

iii. If there was cost growth, the reason(s) for the cost growth

i) Period of Performance

i. Period of Performance at initial contract award

ii. Actual Period of Performance at completion of project

iii. If the performance period was extended, reason(s) for extended period of performance (if applicable)

j) If the project reflected cost growth and/or schedule delays that were not as result of government/user-requested changes, present information describing the measures taken by the offeror to mitigate delays and cost growth during the execution of the project.

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

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

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a Joint Venture (V), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (UEID) 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 9.2). 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 submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3) projects.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project and the offeror’s experience in successfully delivering the project(s) on time and within budget. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table in Paragraph 4.7, Table 1.

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

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

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above in Paragraph 4.7, Table 2, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6. 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 (PM, Superintendent, CQCSM, SSHO) and how this team and key members will work together collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion and delivery of this project. Describe how you intend to manage the quality control requirements.

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

• Describe your plan for mitigating cost growth and schedule creep. Provide a clear and realistic approach to avoiding cost overruns and/or minimize their impacts to the project.

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 this factor. Any information that exceeds the page limit will not be evaluated. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 Management Plans will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. The narrative will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for managing a successful project. The offeror’s plan for mitigating cost growth and schedule creep will be evaluated for feasibility, clarity, demonstration of a clear understanding of the factors/risks that could lead to cost growth, and proactiveness in effectively addressing the associated cost and schedule risks. The Management Plan will be evaluated for how well it demonstrates how the offeror plans to manage the Construction of the Dobbins Air Reserve Base (ARB) Army Reserve Center (ARC) and Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS) project in particular, what critical tasks in this solicitation they believe needs more attention to help mitigate risk, experience managing other USACE projects, and experience using the Resident Management System (RMS). Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB. The SSEB will assign a final, overall adjectival rating using the ratings found in Section 4.7, Table 3 - Combined Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings.

7. Volume I – Factor III: Commissioning Plan

7.1 Submission Requirements:

7.1.1 Provide a preliminary Commissioning Plan for the project that describes how the commissioning process will be managed and coordinated to ensure successful completion of the project. At a minimum, the narrative shall include the following information:

• Identify the Commissioning Firm and/or Specialist(s) and describe how your Commissioning Firm satisfies the requirements of Specification Section 01 46 00.00 06. Include the following: certifications and qualifications, years of experience in commissioning, types of projects commissioned, and information demonstrating commissioning experience with at least one (1) project of complexity similar to this project.

• Describe the commissioning process to include a description of the different phases, critical milestones of the commissioning process, and how they relate to critical construction milestones. Include an outline of systems to be commissioned, commissioning timeline, and documents to be provided.

Describe the key submittals for commissioning process. Describe, by role and qualifications, who will be in lead authority for the contractor (in-house or first tier sub) during the commissioning process. Lay out their roles and authority over all involved subcontractors.

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

NOTE: There is a page limit of six (6) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for this factor. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The narrative will be evaluated based on the offeror’s level of understanding of events identified in paragraph 7.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the commissioning process within the contract duration and before the furniture install. Plans will also be evaluated based on commissioning specialist and firm qualifications including credentials, experience, and understanding of the project’s commissioning requirements. The SSEB will assign a final, overall adjectival rating using the ratings found in Section 4.7, Table 3 - Combined Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings.

8. Volume I – Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan

8.1 Submission Requirements:

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN.

The Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the offeror’s best effort and is required to address each of the following areas individually:

• The extent to which the Small Business Programs listed in FAR 19 (Small Business, Small

Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBZone, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

• The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in %’s for the Base proposal and for each individual Option; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e., teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition;

• The practicality of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e., aggressive goals.

The Small Business Participation Plan shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran-Owned Small Business ( ) Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor: __________________ %

NOTE: Small Business primes’ self-performance counts as Small Business Participation, and Small Business primes may achieve Small Business Participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and/or through subcontracting to other Small Businesses.

(3) Percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

% of Total

Contract Value Large % Total Small % Small Non-Disadvantaged % Small Disadvantaged % Small Woman Owned % Small HUB Zone % Small Veteran-Owned % Small Service-Disabled-Veteran Owned

Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments.

NOTE: The sum of the percentages of Small Non-Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small; however, the sum of all of the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

(4) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Name of Company

Type of Service/Supply

Large Small Non-Disadvantaged Small Disadvantaged Small Woman Owned Small HUB Zone Small Veteran Owned

Small Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned

(5) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts.

(6) For Large and Small Businesses provide descriptive information for all small business categories.

Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

(7) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any small business category as defined in FAR Part 19 as subcontractors.

(8) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all of the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alt. II. This Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation information required above which applies to both Large and Small Businesses. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection but rather a requirement for award to a Large Business. The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

8.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on the offeror’s best efforts, the level of small business commitment that is being demonstrated for the proposed acquisition, and the prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The Small Business Participation Plan must meet the minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of twenty (20%) percent of the total contract value (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business).

The Small Business Participation Plan will be rated using the adjectival ratings listed in Table 4 – Small Business Ratings provided in Paragraph 4.7.

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A), the following elements will be considered in evaluating an offeror’s Participation Plan:

• The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in plans;

• The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

• The realism of the plans;

• Past performance of offerors in complying with the requirements of the Subcontracting Plan Goals for such firms and monetary targets for participation;

• The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the proposed subcontracted value; and

• The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals to help ensure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

9. Volume II – Pro Forma Information

9.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442.

9.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

9.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

• 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.

9.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

9.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one (1) contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEID) with the proposal.

In addition to the JV agreement, Small Business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor- Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

9.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Small Business Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

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

9.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

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

Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company, which must be on the approved Treasury list available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

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

9.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the…