W912QR26RA049-0001.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 4

0001 07 MAY 2026 522156

W912QR

W072 ENDIST LOUISVILLE

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 220 W MAIN STREET 3RD FLOOR

LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-2230

UNITED STATES

JACOB PRIDEMORE, EMAIL: JACOB.S.PRIDEMORE@USACE.ARMY.MIL

TELEPHONE: 502-315-6228

SCD: PAS:

W912QR26RA049

04 MAY 2026

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

See Schedule

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SOLICITATION W912QR26RA049 FOR Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

THE DB CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION MAGAZINE LOCATED AT BLUE

GRASS ARMY DEPOT, RICHMOND, KENTUCKY IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

a. Section 00 22 16 is hereby revised and replaced in its entirety.

b. The bidder inquiry key under Section 00 21 00 "OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS" was incorrect at original solicitation issuance. The OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS is hereby revised and replaced in its entirety.

c. FAR 52.222-90 Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors is hereby incorporated into the solicitation.

Section 00 00 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements

The following changes have been made:

Section 00 01 15 - List of Drawing Sheets

The attachments table has changed from:

To:

The following contract documents were added:

The following contract documents were deleted:

The following contract documents Page Counts were changed:

Section 00 70 00 - Conditions of the Contract

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were added:

1. From the ProjNet 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 ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

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:

The Bidder Inquiry Key is:

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

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

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FOR PHASE ONE

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Design-Build (DB) Construction of the Small Arms Ammunition Magazine (SAAM), Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD), Richmond, Kentucky. The project includes the following scope: construction of a 170,000 SF Ammunition Storehouse for Magazine Small Arms Ammunition and a Munitions Surveillance Workshop and to accommodate required egress components. The facility includes loading docks, ramps, lightning protection system, fire protection and alarm systems, and cybersecurity measures, and Energy Monitoring Control Systems (EMCS) connection. Sustainability and energy enhancement measures are included. Supporting facilities include utilities (water, sewer, gas), electric service, site lighting, organizational parking, access roads, paving, sidewalks, storm drainage, information systems, and site improvements. Heating and air conditioning will be provided by a self-contained system. Comprehensive building and furnishings related to interior design services are required. Access for individuals with disabilities will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life span of 40 years in accordance with DoD's Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1-200-02) including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.

1.2 This is a two-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 16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II.

A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase II notification. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government.

Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority 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. NOTE: The rating information from Phase I will not be considered in Phase II or in the final selection.

1.3 The target ceiling for contract award is $74,000,000.00 based on funds made available for this project for the base plus all options. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance and technical approach necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) as detailed in the Electronic Proposal Submission Instruction, no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Jacob Pridemore. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

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, 2.5 and 2.6 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and section dividers. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module https://wawf.eb.mil/.

Instructions on how to create a vendor account will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_I nstructions.pdf

Instructions on how to submit an offer will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File

Description.)

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within PIEE Solicitation Module site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with RFO 15.107 Electronic Files: Submission shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912QR26RA049-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

W912QR26RA049-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 11x17 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 each section for each factor.

completion / delivery time & date recorded within PIEE. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. As noted above, offerors will not receive a confirmation email but instead will receive upload confirmation in the browser following successful upload. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with RFO 15.107.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “RFO 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” subparagraph (e), which is found in Section 00 21 00 of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

2.5 Volume I for Phase I shall be submitted electronically 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 for Design/Build

2.6 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub-factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the 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 (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors will not be 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 Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

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 the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 & 2 below. 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 for Design/Build will be rated using Table 3 below.

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. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical proposal in their initial offer.

The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of up to the five (5) 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 DOR Approximately Equal to Prime

Contractor

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach 2nd

for Design/Build

4.4 Volume II – Business Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

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

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 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 Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Table 3

Combined Technical / Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates 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 unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

4.6 Definitions:

1. 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.

2. Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

See RFO 15.001.

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

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

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without negotiations is contemplated. See RFO 15.202(a)(2).

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

13. Negotiations. Exchanges between the Government and the Offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Negotiations take place after establishment of the competitive range. See RFO 15.204.

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Prime Contractor

5.1.1 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 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.

NOTE: Renovation work is NOT to be considered similar in size or scope to this requirement.

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

5.1.2 Projects similar in size will be a minimum of 50,000 square feet (SF) of new construction.

5.1.3 Project similar in scope are new construction of a single-story or multi-story warehouse or other facility(s) containing storage of controlled or hazardous materials—such as ammunition, explosives, or other regulated inventory.

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

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

5.1.5 Additional consideration may be given for each project that contains the following features:

a) The submitted project(s) are Design/Build

b) Project(s) performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

c) Experience with explosive safety requirements in accordance with DA PAM 385-64

d) Project(s) performed within the restricted area of Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) requiring escorts.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed.

If project is not yet complete, provide a description of work remaining to be completed.

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

d) Size of the project; differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation

(if the project includes both).

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

f) Dollar value of the project.

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

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address).

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s 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 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly known as DUNS number) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed three (3).

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 and separate joint venture agreement under Volume II, Tab B of the proposal. (See Section 7.2). Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two 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. Acceptable proof of affiliation includes a

5.1.8 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed or for which 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). 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. In order to be considered similar in size and scope, the proposed A/E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer.

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 1 above.

5.2.2 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror.

The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR.

The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment.

The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offer’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 for Design/Build

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach for executing design-build projects. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach narrative shall address the information described in paragraphs 6.1.2– 6.1.4 below:

6.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s Design-Build team and how their resources are utilized in order to deliver a design-build project. Describe how the design and construction process is managed throughout the entirety of a project life cycle.

6.1.3 Communication Plan: Describe interactions and communications both within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers throughout the entirety of a project life cycle.

6.1.4 Risk Mitigation Plan: Provide a comprehensive analysis of project specific risks and your plan for mitigation during contract performance and execution.

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 Technical Approach for Design/Build Factor.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The Government will review the proposed Technical Approach and identify any strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposal. The Government will evaluate the proposal based on the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design/Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects. Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal to demonstrate their approach for successfully completing the solicited Design/Build project.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designer of record, construction firm, and the Government reviewers. . The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to execute design/build projects, to include the integration of the design 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. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

Evaluation of Communication Plan: The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness, clarity, and anticipated effectiveness of the Offeror's proposed Communication Plan. The evaluation will assess the adequacy of the methodology for ensuring seamless coordination and resolution between the Design-Build team. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the proposed framework for maintaining transparent, timely, and effective communication with the Corps of Engineers across all phases of the project life cycle (design, pre-construction, execution, and close-out).

Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Plan: The Government will evaluate the quality, depth, and credibility of the contractor’s risk-mitigation plan. The evaluation will consider how effectively the offeror identifies project-specific risks and demonstrates a clear understanding of risks associated with the project’s constraints, site conditions, and Government requirements.

7. Volume II –Business Information (Submit in a separate file).

7.1 Tab A: Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 of this solicitation.

7.1.2 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 is signed.

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B: Joint Venture and Mentor-Protégé Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

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

In addition to the joint venture agreement, small business offerors submitting a proposal as Mentor-Protégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for purpose of complete the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Small business joint venture agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business set-aside acquisitions and/or small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & 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 the offeror’s banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing the offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address and telephone number of the offeror’s bonding company.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

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

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:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

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

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier for any and all key subcontractors identified in the proposal.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

be rated.

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

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

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

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

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR

WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR

PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION

ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT

QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY

BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE

POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND

ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(U) Unsatisfactory

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

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

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

E VG S M U

N

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

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

E VG S M U

N

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

E VG S M U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U

N

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

E VG S M U

N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?

E VG S M U

N

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

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U

N

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

E VG S M U

N

d) Overall customer satisfaction

E VG S M U

N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually…