W912QR26RA031 Solicitation.pdf

(See ).

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

9. FOR

INFORMATION CALL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

1. SOLICITATION NUMBER

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER

CODE

6. PROJECT NUMBER

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

4. CONTRACT NUMBER

7. ISSUED BY

11. The contractor shall begin performance within

12a. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES", indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12b.)

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

a. Sealed offers in original and

b. An offer guarantee

c. All offers are subject to the (1) work requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

d. Offers providing less than

STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 12/2022)

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(d) calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.

is, is not required.

local time containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

(date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers will be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by (hour) award, YES NO notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory negotiable.

calendar days and complete it within calendar days after receiving

a. NAME b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

12b. CALENDAR DAYS

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

INVITATION FOR BID

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3. DATE ISSUED PAGE OF PAGES

W912QR26RA031 1 93

570103

W072 ENDIST LOUISVILLE

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 600 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PL

LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2230

UNITED STATES

STEPHANIE DREES, EMAIL: STEPHANIE.N.DREES@USACE.ARMY.MIL

TELEPHONE: (502) 315-3270

W912QR

W072 ENDIST LOUISVILLE

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 600 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PL

LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2230

UNITED STATES

STEPHANIE DREES (502) 315-3270

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS (Title, identifying number, date)

PROJECT TITLE: FTC FIRE STATION

PROJECT LOCATION: FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY

DESIGN BUILD TO BUDGET CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION IN FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A REQUIRED NON-STANDARD ONE-

COMPANY SATELLITE FIRE STATION TO SERVE THE SABRE AIRFIELD. THE FIRE STATION WILL CONTAIN A KITCHEN AND DINING AREA, SLEEPING AREAS, STORAGE AREA, TRAINING ROOM, LAUNDRY, PHYSICAL TRAINING ROOM, LATRINES AND APPARATUS ROOM. THE SUPPORTING FACILITIES INCLUDE ELECTRICAL, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING (APPROXIMATELY 15 TONS), BASIC LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT, INFORMATION SYSTEMS, SECURITY/SCAN SYSTEM FOR AT/FP, AND AN AREA FOR FIRETRUCK BASIC MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING. ACCESS FOR THE HANDICAPPED WILL BE PROVIDED.

The Contractor shall be required to commence work under this contract within 720 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed.

10 720

FAR 52.211-10

02:00 PM

08 MAY 2026

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

17. The offeror agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified below in strict accordance with the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted calendar days after the date offers are due. (Insert any number equal to or greater than the minimum requirement by the Government in writing within stated in Item 13d. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13d.)

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

AMOUNTS

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT

NUMBER

DATE

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR (Include ZIP Code)

CODE FACILITY CODE

15. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (Include only if different than Item 14.)

20a. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT

26. ADMINISTERED BY

30a. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN (Type or print)

31c. DATE

STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 12/2022) BACK

31b. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

31a. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on this solicitation is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award consummates the contract, which consists of (a) the Government solicitation and your offer, and (b) this contract award. No further contractual document is necessary.

30b. SIGNATURE 30c. DATE

28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return and deliver all items or perform all work requirements identified on this form and any continuation sheets for the consideration stated in this contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be governed by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certifications, and specifications incorporated by reference in or attached to this contract.

copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

ITEM

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES

CODE AT

27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

10 U.S.C. 3204(a) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 3304(a) ( )

20b. SIGNATURE 20c. OFFER DATE

BLOCK 10 CONTINUATION PAGE

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

Technical inquiries and questions relating to the proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://projnet.org/projnet. Please see Section 00 21 00, ProjNet Instructions / Offeror’s Questions and

Comments for further instructions.

The Government is requiring electronic submission of proposals. Please follow the provided instructions precisely.

Please see Section 00 21 00, Electronic Proposal Submission Instructions.

An organized Site Visit will be held for the selected offerors following Phase II Amendment. Site Visit information will be provided in FAR 52.236-27 Alt I as part of the Phase II amendment.

NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS/OFFERORS: In accordance with DFARS 204.7302, Contractors and subcontractors are required to provide adequate security on all covered contractor information systems.

Contractors are required to implement National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication

(SP) 800-171 by inclusion of clause at 252.204-7012 DEV, Safeguarding Covered

Defense Information and Cyber incident Reporting are required at time of award to have at least a Basic NIST SP

800-171 DoD Assessment that is current (i.e., not more than 3 years old unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation).

SPRS provides storage and access to the NIST SP 800-171 assessment scoring information. To access the NIST SP

800-171 Assessments module, users must be registered in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment

(PIEE) https://piee.eb.mil/ and be approved for access to Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

The NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology is located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cyber/safeguarding.html#nistSP800171

Vendor Help and Training Tutorials are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm

The term bid and proposal are used interchangeably in industry and may be used interchangeably throughout this

Solicitation.

Please note, page numbering in this document may not be accurate.

All days are to be considered calendar days, unless otherwise noted.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cyber/safeguarding.html#nistSP800171

Sabre Airfield Fire and Rescue Station Sabre Army Airfield,Ft Campbell , KY

P2 570103 Price Breakout Schedule

CERTIFIED FINAL DESIGN BUILD RFP

SECTION 00 10 00

00 10 00

PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

02/13

OFFEROR'S NAME: ___________________________________________

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

Line Item

No. Description Unit Amount

BASE PROPOSAL

0001. Design: All work and labor required Job $ ______________________ to design the Sabre Airfield Fire Station and Rescue.

0002. Construction of Sabre Airfield Fire Station and Rescue:

Fire station building, site prep, site improvements, site demolition, water service, sewer service, gas service, electric service and site lighting Job $ ______________________

0003. Water Utilities Job $ ____$214,775.00________

0004. Gas Utilities Job $ ____$41,850.02_________

0005. Power/Lighting Utilities Job $ ___$374,744.00________

Total Base Proposal $

NOTES FOR CONTRACT LINE ITEM (CLIN) SCHEDULE

NOTE NO. 1. To better facilitate the receipt and proposal process, all modifications to proposals are to be submitted on copies of the latest Contract Line Item (CLIN) schedules as published in the solicitation or the latest amendment thereto. In lieu of indicating additions/deductions to line items, all Offerors should state their revised prices for each item.

NOTE NO. 2. Offerors must insert a price on all numbered items of the CLIN Schedule. Failure to do so may result in the offer being unacceptable.

--END OF CLIN SCHEDULE—

DRAFT

DRAFT

NOTE NO. 3 Price Breakout Schedule is only being provided for informational purposes only as Phase I does not include pricing information.

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: W912QR26RA031

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: FN5HZS-2Q3KQX

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjN et home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

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

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

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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:

1. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

7. 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.

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

NOTES:

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjN et, 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.

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Proposals: 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 submissions will be accepted.

Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the PIEE-SOLICITATION MODULE (https://piee.eb.mil/).

Instructions for uploading proposals are as follows:

1. Register in PIEE:

a. Navigate to https://piee.eb.mil/

b. Select Register [top right]

c. Select Vendor

d. Create a User ID and Password and follow the prompts [next]

e. Create Security Questions [next]

f. Complete your User Profile Information [next]

g. Complete your Supervisor or Approving Official Information [next]

h. Complete Roles

i. Step 1. Select SOL-Solicitation

ii. Step 2. Select Proposal Manager

iii. Step 3. Click Add Roles

iv. Step 4. Fill in our Location Code (CAGE Code) [next]

i. Provide a justification for your registration [next]

j. Follow the remaining prompts to submit your registration

2. Log into PIEE and select the Solicitation Icon.

3. Enter search criteria to fmd the solicitation. (Search Criteria can be the complete solicitation number, Solicitation Open Date, Response Due Date, Product or Service Code, NAICS, Set Aside code, Place of Performance Zip Code, Contracting Office DODAAC, or Status)

4. The search results display. Select the Solicitation Number link to open the solicitation.

5. The solicitation displays. The information is view only.

6. Scroll down to see the Contract Information and Attachments. The Attachments can be viewed by selecting the File link. Scroll back up to the top of the screen and click the Offer tab.

7. Click the Offer tab to Add and review current offers on the Solicitation. Click the Ad d button to add an offer to the Solicitation.

8. Select the applicable Cage Code for which submitting the proposal for. The list is prefiltered based on the Cage in the Proposal Manager's profile.

9. It is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

a. W912QR26RA031-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

b. W912QR26RA031-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm's name and a brief file description.

Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 11 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11 xl 7 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.

CUI

Section 00 22 16 – Procedures for Submittal of Offers and Proposal Evaluation Criteria for Phase I

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Design and Construction of the Fort Campbell Fire Station, located in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Design and Construct a required non-standard one-company satellite fire station to serve the Sabre Airfield. The fire station will contain a kitchen and dining area, sleeping areas, storage area, training room, laundry, physical training room, latrines and apparatus room. The supporting facilities include electrical, heating and air conditioning (approximately 15 tons), basic landscaping and site development, information systems, security/scan system for AT/FP, and an area for firetruck basic maintenance and cleaning. Access for the handicapped will be provided.

1.2 Design Build to Budget (DB2B) delivery method establishes a fixed construction cost limit (CCL). The CCL for this project is $7,274,000.00. Offerors are challenged to propose the best possible technical solution that meets the performance requirements outlined in the solicitation at the CCL. The government intends to award to the contractor that provides the best value, defined as the optimal combination of technical solution and project scope, at the CCL.

The DB2B delivery method consists of the following distinct phases and steps. The phases correlate to Phase I and Phase II in section 00 22 16 and section 00 22 18 respectively.

Phase I:

1) Government issues Request For Proposal (RFP) with the Phase I requirements.

2) Government evaluates Phase I proposals against the criteria outlined in Section 00

22 16 and down selects the most highly qualified offerors to proceed to Phase II.

3) A draft Phase II RFP is sent to each down selected offeror from Phase I.

4) Government holds a series of up to three (3), 3-hour proprietary meetings with each offeror invited to participate in Phase II to refine the project requirements and Phase II RFP.

a) During these meetings, the Government will present an overview of the requirements. The offeror will be expected to discuss its design concepts and engage in a dialogue regarding project scope, schedule, and budget. This collaborative process will aid the Government in refining the final RFP requirements.

b) Between meetings, offerors will have approximately two to three weeks to refine their concepts. The Government may also refine the Phase II RFP requirements during this time. Each subsequent proprietary meeting is intended to further develop and clarify the project scope, schedule, and budget.

c) The rules of engagement for these meetings are as follows:

i) A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) will be required for all participants.

i) Equal meeting times will be provided for all offerors (maximum of three ( 3)-hours per meeting).

i) These meetings are not part of the proposal evaluation; only the final written proposal submissions will be evaluated.

i) Discussions held during the Phase I meetings are not contractually binding.

Only formal amendments to the solicitation and the offeror's final revised proposal are contractually binding. Offerors may submit Requests for Information (RFI) after the meetings.

i) Responses to non-proprietary RFI’s will be shared with all down-selected offerors.

i) The Government will provide meeting minutes outlining key takeaways to each respective offeror. Meetings will NOT be recorded.

i) The Government will decide whether meetings are held in person or virtually.

Phase II:

1) Government issues final Phase II RFP via amendment.

2) Government evaluates Phase II proposals against the criteria outlined in Section

00 22 18.

3) Government conducts discussions with offerors, if determined necessary.

4) Government awards contract to the contractor that offers the best value to the

Government.

1.3 This project is subject to the availability of funds (SAF). No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project.

Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the Proposal

Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. Please follow the instructions precisely as proposals must complete the upload no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. * NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this Design-Build project. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be electronic in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 0 21 00 of the solicitation. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

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

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

Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

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

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

2.5 Phase I Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal

Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and shall include the

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

Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

* NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A SSEB comprised of representatives of the USACE, 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. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is 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 in paragraph 1.2 above. Evaluations will be based on the content of the information contained in the submitted proposal, corrections provided within the time frame of the solicitation, information obtained from other sources (i.e., past performance reviews, references), and responses to addenda/amendments to this solicitation only. Proposals will be evaluated compared to the solicitation and not against one another. The Government will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference. Identity and other information about the SST members are confidential and members will not be available for contact or discussion at any time.

The SST will evaluate proposals and assign a consensus rating for each proposal Factor.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase I submission and to furnish all information clearly and completely to allow the Government to determine their performance capabilities. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after the Phase I deadline and any extensions expire.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: proposal compliance/responsibility review and technical evaluation.

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

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate Volume I proposals against the

RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Paragraph 4.5 Tables 1 and 2. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II –Technical Approach will be rated using Paragraph 4.5, Table 3.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of a target of the three (3) of the most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II of the procurement.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

Prime Contractor Approximately Equal to A/E DOR A/E Designer of Record (DOR) Approximately Equal to Prime

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach 2nd

4.4 Volume II – Business Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

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

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

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

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description

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

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

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

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

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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

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

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

4.6 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. Exchanges between the Government and offerors where offerors are given the opportunity to resolve minor or clerical errors or clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarifications can be used to enhance the Government’s understanding of a proposal, allow reasonable interpretation of a proposal, or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. See RFO 15.202(a)(2).

3. Deficiency. Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO 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 RFO 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. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

12. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 15.001.

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. If the project is not yet completed, describe the work left to be completed. If commissioning is not finalized, provide its current status. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size are design-build new construction projects that include a minimum of 7,500 square feet.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include design-build new construction of buildings similar to:

a) Industrial Shop Facilities or

b) Vehicle Maintenance Shops (VMS) or

c) Fire Stations

NOTE: Design-Bid-Build projects may be submitted; however, they may be considered less relevant than Design-Build projects.

NOTE: Renovation projects may be submitted; however, they may be considered less relevant than new construction projects.

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

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

a) Established working relationship with the proposed DOR on previous design-build projects.

b) Design-build new construction projects that demonstrate experience with military installations/bases.

c) Experience with construction project(s) for USACE.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

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

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) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed

f) If the project was Design-build or Design--bid-build.

g) Whether the project was renovation, new construction, or both.

h) Dollar Value of Project

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

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 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 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, and sister companies 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, or unless those other contractors are affiliates of the offeror as defined in accordance with 13 CFR 121.103 and with proof of affiliation provided with the offer. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a Joint Venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal, and the 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 (UEI) number 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. 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 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).

Relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of small business offerors will be considered. Affiliates (as defined by RFO 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.

5.1.8 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed (i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope (see paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 above). In order to be considered similar, the proposed A/E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the solicited project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor. In addition to the above and below, provide the information requested in paragraphs 5.1.6. and 5.1.7. The offeror must affirmatively state who their proposed DOR for the project will be and provide the DOR’s Unique Entity ID (UEI) number and CAGE Code.

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

a) Experience with USACE Design-build Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact)

* NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Plan Factor.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table in Paragraph 4.5, Table 1.

5.2.2 For both Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity ID (UEI) 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above in Paragraph 4.5, Table 2, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

* NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted approximately equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Collaboration: Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s philosophy and intended management plan for executing this project and integration of USACE Design-Build processes. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how key members (e.g., Construction PM, Construction Superintendent, Construction Quality Control, SSHO, Design PM, and Design Quality Control) of the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely quality completion of the project. On-site key team members shall be assigned no other duties than the role specified, including those performed for another project/contract.

6.1.2 Organization: Describe the firms that compose the offeror’s Design-Build team, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team, explaining how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the Design- Build team.

6.1.3 Quality Control: Describe the Design-Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

a) Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate Government reviews.

b) Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as built, and completion documentation.

c) In addition to the required designer-of-record (DOR) roles specified within the RFP for maintaining integrity of the design, describe any other DOR involvement in the quality control process, if any. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award.

* NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Plan Factor.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 Collaboration: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design-Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects.

6.2.2 Organization: The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to successfully execute design-build projects, to include the integration of the Designers of Record and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB.

6.2.3 Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government will evaluate the strengths of the offeror’s proposed system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designer of record during the construction quality control process.

6.3 Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal for the Technical Approach for Factor II to demonstrate and describe the working relationship between the prime contractor and DOR and how that team will successfully complete this project. demonstrate this prime contractor and designer approach for successfully completing this project. The SSEB will assess any strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies and assign a final, overall adjectival rating using the ratings found in Section 4.5, Table 3 - Combined Technical / Risk Ratings.

7. Volume II – Business Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

* NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity ID (UEI) with the proposal. A copy of the offeror's signed joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the Phase I proposal.

In addition to the JV agreement, Small Business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-

Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

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

b) Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company, which must be on the approved Treasury list available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

will not be rated. See RFO Part 28 for information related to bonds.

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

a) The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

b) The offeror shall submit the following information:

i. Number of years the firm has been in business

ii. Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

iii. A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

will not be rated.

SECTION 00 22 18

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE TWO

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

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Design and Construction of the FTC Fire Station, located in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Design and Construct a required non-standard one-company satellite fire station to serve the Sabre Airfield. The fire station will contain a kitchen and dining area, sleeping areas, storage area, training room, laundry, physical training room, latrines and apparatus room. The supporting facilities include electrical, heating and air conditioning (approximately 15 tons), basic landscaping and site development, information systems, security/scan system for AT/FP, and an area for firetruck basic maintenance and cleaning. Access for the handicapped will be provided.

1.2 DB2B delivery method establishes a fixed CCL. The CCL for this project is $7,274,000.00.

Offerors are challenged to propose the best possible technical solution that meets the performance requirements outlined in the solicitation at the CCL.