W912QR25RA023-0001.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 6

0001 23 APR 2025 505014

W912QR

W072 ENDIST LOUISVILLE

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 600 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PL

LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2230

UNITED STATES

ALEX HAMILTON, EMAIL: ALEX.J.HAMILTON@USACE.ARMY.MIL

SCD: PAS:

W912QR25RA023

31 MAR 2025

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SEE SCHEDULE

W912QR25RA023-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification): SOLICITATION AMENDMENT 0001

Solicitation No. W912QR25RA023 for the Construction of a Microgrid System at Conroe Army Reserve Center (ARC) located in Conroe, TX is hereby amended as follows:

The proposal due date has been extended from 30 April 2025 at 2:00 PM ET to 14 May 2025 at

2:00 PM ET.

The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds has been extended. ProjNet will be disabled on Friday, 02 May 2025 at 3:00 PM ET. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system after Friday, 09 May 2025 at 3:00 PM ET.

The following items have been revised under SECTION 00 22 12 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF

OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1.) Paragraph 5 Volume I - Factor I: Past Performance, Subparagraph 5.1.1 has been deleted in its entirety.

2.) Paragraph 5 Volume I - Factor I: Past Performance, Subparagraph 5.1.5 has been revised to remove item c. from the additional considerations.

3.) Paragraph 5 Volume I - Factor I: Past Performance, Subparagraph 5.2.4 has been deleted in its entirety.

4.) Paragraph 6 Volume I - Factor II: Technical Approach, Subparagraph 6.3 1. has been revised to replace "Equipment lightoff" with Equipment startup".

D. Offerors must acknowledge all amendments.

E. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

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 Construction of a Microgrid system at

Conroe Army Reserve Center (ARC) in Conroe, TX. 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. W912QR25RA023, for Construction of a Microgrid system at Conroe Army Reserve Center (ARC) in Conroe, TX. The design/bid/build construction project provides energy resiliency by providing an on-site, automated energy control / generation storage management system: Construct a microgrid system, including a smart grid control system, that will have full islanding capability. The microgrid system will incorporate a new 388kW carport mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar array and 1-340kW natural gas backup generator system, with load-balancing controllers to reduce fuel use. The microgrid system will include master microgrid controller, and an automated distribution switch to disconnect the Army Reserve Center (ARC) from local electrical utility grid during grid outages. Microgrid will be installed on a closed restricted network (CRN) requiring an Authority to Operate (ATO) IAW Department of Defense (DoD) policies. System cybersecurity requirements IAW UFC 4-010-06 “Cybersecurity for Facility Related Control Systems” are included in the specifications.

1.3 The microgrid system will support energy resiliency by providing on-site energy generation, this includes the installation of natural gas (NG) generators, PV system, microgrid control system, electrical interconnection switchgear, interconnection circuit wirings, and modification to the existing electrical distribution system as necessary to establish the Conroe ARC microgrid network. The PV array shall meet IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Standard 1741-SA, 2018 IEEE 1547 for Interconnection, as well as meet all federal, state, and local code requirements. The PV system will be designed to utilize PV power on-site prior to feeding into the local grid. The net metering and interconnection agreements will require approval by the utility provider, CenterPoint Energy. Contract duration is estimated at 660 calendar days from contract Administrative Notice to Proceed.

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 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 are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.3 and

2.4 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and section dividers 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, no later than the time specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. Hard copies 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. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

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

2.3 Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach o Element A: Management Plan o Element B: Schedule Narrative

Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

2.4 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

Volume 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

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

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 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 described herein, and the basis of award is a 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, that both a technical and price proposal were received, 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 Paragraph 4.6, Tables 1 (Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) and Table 2 (Performance Confidence Rating). The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past performance and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3 (Combined/Technical Risk Assessment Ratings) and Factor III – 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, and subsequent to, the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all the above evaluations are complete, the SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The 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

4.3 Volume I – Factor II –Technical Approach 2nd

o Element A - Management Plan o Element B - Schedule Narrative

4.4 Volume I – Factor III – Small Business Participation Plan 3rd

4.5 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Separate file from Volume 1)

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 (Large Business Offerors Only) Acceptable / Unacceptable

4.6 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the adjectival 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 Assessment Ratings 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 Assessment 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 the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

TABLE 4

Small Business Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

4.7 Definitions

1. Access Control Systems. Refers to the security measures implemented within the microgrid's control system, limiting who can access and modify its operational parameters, ensuring only authorized personnel can manage the generation, distribution, and load balancing functions of the microgrid, preventing unauthorized changes or potential disruptions to the power supply.

2. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “CPARS” or “FAPIIS.” 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.

3. Centralized Generation. The process of producing electricity at large facilities and distributing it to consumers through a power grid.

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

5. Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c).

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

7. Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

8. Distributed Energy Resources (DER). Smaller generation units that are located on the consumer's side of the meter. Examples of distributed energy resources that can be installed include roof top solar photovoltaic units, wind generating units, battery storage.

9. Duct Bank. A protective conduit system that carries electrical and communication cables for a microgrid. Duct banks can be installed underground or above ground.

10. Generation Storage Management System. A software platform designed to efficiently manage and optimize the storage of data generated by power plants or other energy generation sources.

11. Generator. Generators harness mechanical energy, fueled by natural gas in this case, to create electricity. Natural gas generators use fuels such as propane or natural gas, drawn either from a direct line piped in by utility suppliers or via a tank, to generate electricity.

12. Load-Balancing Controllers. A specialized control unit that actively manages the distribution of electrical load across different distributed energy resources (DERs) within the microgrid.

13. Microgrid. A group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. A microgrid can connect and disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected mode and island mode.

14. Performance Confidence Assessment. 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.

15. Photovoltaics (PV). PV is the conversion of light into electricity using semiconducting materials that exhibit the photovoltaic effect. A photovoltaic system employs solar modules, each comprising a number of solar cells, which generate electrical power. PV installations may be ground-mounted, rooftop-mounted, wall-mounted or floating. The mount may be fixed or use a solar tracker to follow the sun across the sky.

16. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, recency 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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

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

22. Switchgear. A centralized collection of electrical devices like circuit breakers, fuses, and disconnect switches that function to control, isolate, and protect the flow of power within the microgrid, essentially acting as a central hub for managing electricity distribution and ensuring safety during faults or maintenance needs; it allows for the selective disconnection of circuits when necessary while maintaining power to other parts of the microgrid.

23. 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).

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

FAR 15.001.

AMENDMENT 0001***********************************************************************

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 offeror as the

Prime Contractor within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are deemed substantially complete when at least 95% of the construction work, including commissioning activities, has been completed. If commissioning is not finalized, provide the current status of commissioning activities and description of activities remaining. Projects that do not have finalized commissioning activities may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size to this requirement shall include construction of a microgrid demonstrating at least one (1) of the following size elements. Sizes greater than those identified below will be considered similar in size:

a. Installation & construction of distributed energy resources (DER) to handle loads of 100 to 500 kW.

b. Installation of electrical and telecommunication duct bank for control of distributed energy resources of 100kW and above.

c. Installation of switchgear and necessary breakers for systems control of distributed energy resources of 100kW and above.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall include construction of a microgrid demonstrating at least three (3) of the following scope elements:

a. Installation of Photovoltaic systems.

b. Installation of centralized generation.

c. Installation of electrical and telecommunication duct bank and controls for Microgrids.

d. Commissioning of Microgrid systems.

e. Implementation of control systems for electrical peak shaving.

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) with its own employees, 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 at least one of the following features:

a. Performance of a new construction project for USACE.

b. Meet all similar in size and scope criteria.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier.

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

a. For projects that are not yet complete, provide percent of work complete and 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 the type of work performed and the percentage of work that was self-performed.

f) Dollar value of the project.

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

h) Two references for the project, with emails and telephone numbers.

*NOTE: There is a page limit of fifteen (15) 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 Past Performance factor. Past-

Performance Questionnaires/CPARS Evaluations do not count toward this page count. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

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 (PPQ) is attached for your convenience. If used, the PPQ must be submitted by the Offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the Offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s respective corrective action. Note: Project references, CPARS, PPQs, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects do not count toward the 3-page limitation for project description details.

*NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, and sister or parent companies will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture (JV) offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement.

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, 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). However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number with the JV 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 Paragraph 8.2). If the offeror represents the combining of two (2) or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total number of projects submitted by the JV will not exceed three

(3) projects.

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.

5.2 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 (Table 1) in Paragraph 4.6.

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 (UEI) numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal. 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 Ratings table (Table 2) in Paragraph 4.6, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, and (2) how well the offeror performed that past performance.

***********************************************************************AMENDMENT 0001

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach:

6.1 Submission Requirements:

The Technical Approach factor will consist of a Management Plan and Schedule Narrative.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the two (2) elements listed below and determine the overall quality of the offeror’s Technical Approach. The SSEB will assign an overall Technical/Risk Rating using the ratings in the Combined Technical/Risk Assessment table (Table 3) in Paragraph 4.6 for the Technical Approach Factor. The Management Plan and Schedule Narrative will not be individually assigned ratings.

6.2 Element A: Management Plan

6.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, designers, 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:

Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating the identified risk during contract performance to include coordination with subcontractor, general labor, privatized utilities, Base Civil Engineering, and Security Forces.

Describe your communication process and frequency for progress meetings. To include agenda topics for progress meetings to ensure successful project completion. Pay close attention to the frequency requirements for the meetings.

*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 portion of this factor.

Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

6.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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. The Management Plan will be evaluated for how well it demonstrates how the offeror plans to manage this 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.

AMENDMENT 0001***********************************************************************

6.3 Element B: Schedule Narrative

6.3.1 Submission Requirements

Based on the project budget and scope, provide a schedule narrative describing the construction sequence/process for successful completion of the project within the duration shown in FAR 52.211-10.

At a minimum, the Schedule Narrative shall address the timing and process(es) necessary to complete the key activities indicated below:

Pre-Construction Submittals and Government Review Long Lead Items Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) Process Activities Key Permits Equipment startup through full system Commissioning Activities and Critical Submittals Project Closeout Planning and Coordination including Red Zone Meeting As-Builts

Additionally, Offerors are to provide a simple bar chart that shows the key activities indicated above.

*NOTE: There is a page limit of five (5) 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 Schedule Narrative portion of this factor.

There is a page limit of three (3) 11” x 17” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the bar chart portion of this element. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

***********************************************************************AMENDMENT 0001

6.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

The narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of the key activities identified in paragraph

6.3.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration. The bar chart will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s understanding of the appropriate sequencing and durations of the identified key activities. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the key activities and tasks and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the contract within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

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

7. Volume I – Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

7.1 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, 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 year and for each individual option year; 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).

7.2 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 ratings in the Small Business Ratings table (Table 4) in Paragraph 4.6.

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.

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, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in the this solicitation.

8.1.2 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 Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15.404 independent of the Past Performance and Technical evaluations. The price will be evaluated on Base proposal plus all Options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using 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 (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 JV members.

However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) 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.

NOTE: A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:

(A) Small business;

(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB program; or

(E) Historically underutilized business zone small business.

8.2.2 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.

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, which must be on the approved Treasury list available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

8.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

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 (2) 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:

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

8.5 Tab E - Subcontracting Plan

8.5.1 Submission Requirements:

Large business offerors shall…