20R0001_Am-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

a. This amendment is issued for the follow ings:

(1) Section 00 21 00, FAR Clause 52.236-27, Site Visit: There is NO site visit scheduled for this project.

(2) Section 010041 Consturction Security is revised and provided as an attachment to this amendment.

(3) Sections 00 21 16 and 00 22 16 are revised.

b. The proposal due date is extended to 8 May 2020. The closing time remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912UM20R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Mar-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Apr-2020

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FAR EAST DISTRICT

UNIT #15546

APO AP 96271

W912UM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

Am-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Apr-4020 10:00 AM to 08-May-4020 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB 1995)

(a) The clauses at 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

(b) An organized site visit has been scheduled for 0900 hours, 13 February 2020 at FED HQs Building No. P12600, USAG-Humphreys, Korea.

(c) Participants will meet at FED HQs Building No. P12600, USAG-Humphreys, Korea.

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

Section 00 21 16 Proposal Submission Requirements

1. General.

Offerors must have a U.S. Facility Clearance Level (FCL) of Secret. The solicitation specifications and design will be RELEASED ONLY to Offerors who possess a current U.S. Facility Clearance Level (FCL) of SECRET to ensure that all FOUO/classified documents are controlled and released only to Offerors with the appropriate security clearance. The procurement will require any interested Offerors to complete and sign the Controlled Unclassified Non-Disclosure Agreement. All Controlled Unclassified Information must be handled in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Manual (NISPROM) (DoD 5220-22-M) and Industrial Security Regulation (DoD 522.22-R).

Security Qualification of Offerors. The Offerors will be required to submit for evaluation documentation that establishes each Offeror’s security qualification, which must be in effect and valid at the time of submission of the documentation. The Government will validate and determine the Offerors’ security qualification before the solicitation specifications and designs are released to the Offerors.

Requests for Proposals from Qualified Offerors. Only those Offerors that meet the security requirement will be allowed to participate in submission of their technical and price proposals under this solicitation. Note: To be eligible and to receive an award the Offeror Secret Clearance must be in effect and valid at the time of award.

2. Submission Requirements.

The Government will accept the following documents via email to the following individuals:

jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil and Nicholas.johnston@usace.army.mil. Provide the following information 1.

Request in the Offeror’s Company Letterhead: Solicitation Number; the name, address, and telephone, and email of the Offeror; and 2, Signed Controlled Non-Disclosure Agreement; 3. Offeror’s Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. This information must match what is registered in JPASS. Contractors must also register in beta.sam.gov under the solicitation as an interested party. The Design and Specifications will only be released to Offerors through beta.sam.gov that have current FCL of SECRET or higher (PGI 204.402 (2)). Access shall be granted within 24 hours (not including request received on weekends in Korea). Failure to receive approval to the Design and Specifications will make you ineligible for award.

Proposals shall be submitted in PDF Format as two separate files. Each Factor and Tab shall be bookmarked for ease of navigation within the PDF’s.

SUBMISSION OF PRICE and TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, the Offeror’s shall submit both a Price and a Technical Proposal. The evaluation factors (3 factors total) for the technical proposal are: Factor 1: Past Experience - Prime Contractor, Factor 2: Past Performance; and Factor 3: Organization & Management. Factor 4.

Price shall be submitted in a separate volume. The price must be submitted in accordance with the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule contained in Section 00 10 00.

3. Evaluation Factors

Preface: If the Offeror wants to insert a preface to its Technical Proposal (Volume 1) it shall not exceed one

(1) page in length. The Government only evaluate what is provided in its response to each Technical Evaluation Factor.

3.1. VOLUME 1 FACTOR 1: PAST EXPERIENCE – PRIME CONTRACTOR

Submit descriptions of up to five (5) projects that the Offeror believes demonstrates its relevant experience in constructing projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the required work described in this Solicitation. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated.

Project descriptions may include construction contracts which the Offeror has completed, which are currently under construction or which are substantially complete. Project descriptions must include the following information:

a. The regulatory standards (DSS/ICD 705) applicable to complete the projects’ SCIF/ or TS/SCI CAA facilities/features, including the projects’ specific accreditation requirements.

b. The security processes and methodologies implemented throughout the duration of the project(s).

c. The administrative and logistics procedures for hiring and managing cleared personnel and procurement/shipment of cleared equipment/materials.

d. The square footage of the project’s SCIF specific space.

If the lead in a JV does not have experience working as a JV, the partners of the JV may submit experience on behalf of the lead. The JV may submit no more than five (5) projects, but each respective JV partner must submit at least one (1) contract. Submitted projects by members of a JV or the JV itself will be considered and evaluated as long as the members or JV was the prime contractor.

Joint Venture Agreement: The Joint Venture shall provide a brief narrative (not to exceed 1 single-sided page) stating the roles that each partner of the Joint Venture will perform on this project. The JV and/or JV partners shall explain how it is structured. Include a copy of the finalized / approved JV Agreement. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties. The JV should state its position whether it is mailto:jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil mailto:Nicholas.johnston@usace.army.mil jointly and severally liable for the performance of the contract. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization / Incorporation.

Each project shall be described in two pages or less (if printed the sheet size shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches).

Use Times New Roman or Aerial font size shall be 12 pitch with page margins of at least 1 inch wide, but may include headers and footers. Any pages that exceed the limitation will not be considered.

3.2. VOLUME 1 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

For the projects listed under Factor 1, Past Experience – Prime Contractor or members of JV (paragraph 3.1), the Government will query the Offeror’s Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts and any other past performance information the Government deems necessary to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance.

a. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 Past Performance – Prime Contractor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offeror’s should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jennifer Ko via email at Jennifer.I.Ko@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offeror’s shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

b. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, 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.

c. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

3.3. VOLUME 1 FACTOR 3: ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Describe the Offeror’s proposed mix of subcontractors and major suppliers/vendors, including their roles, functions and responsibilities under the Offeror’s team. If the Offeror has concluded any contractual arrangements with prospective team members, identify those. Describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a description of each team or JV firm's planned roles and responsibilities on the project. Describe the proposed management structure of the team, and how the prime will manage the team’s construction process, including a simple organizational chart, illustrating the Offeror’s proposed organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Describe the types of work the Offeror will self-perform to comply with requirements in clause 52.236-1 and Section 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions 29, Self-Performance of Work. Identify the firms that have been selected for all work under the project that the prime will not be self-performing with its own workforce, and describe their planned roles during project execution.

The Offeror’s submission under Factor 3 shall be limited to a total of ten (10) digital pages that if they were to be printed would fit on ten (10) 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper pages. The simple organization chart may be mailto:Jennifer.I.Ko@usace.army.mil formatted as one (1) 11 x 17 inch page when printed on paper. Use Times New Roman or Arial font type sized not small than 12 pitch with page margins of at least 1 inch wide. The pages may include headers and footers.

3.4. VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4. PRICE

Submit the Price Proposal (Volume 2) in a separate PDF file labeled “Volume 2 – Price Proposal”.

a. TAB 1: Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2) (c) (i)-

(v) and must be submitted by all Offeror’s. This provision, titled “Instructions to Offeror’s—Competitive Acquisition,” and the format for the proposal cover sheet as shown here:

b. TAB 2: Standard Form (SF) 1442. Signed SF1442 with all amendments acknowledged, in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

c. TAB 3: CLIN PROPOSAL SCHEDULE. Section 00 10 00, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule, is to be completed in its entirety.

d. TAB 4: Representations and Certifications: All Offeror’s must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “Online Representations and Certifications Application” at https://www.beta.sam.gov. The Offeror’s are responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete.

e. TAB 5: BONDING CAPABILITY. Offeror’s shall provide an original letter from the Offeror’s surety (ies) which indicates the Offeror has bonding capability for an amount that equals or exceeds the Offeror’s proposed price.

f. TAB 6 - Facility Clearance (FCL) - Security Qualification

g. TAB 7 – Signed/Approved Joint Venture Agreement

4. Submission Content and Format.

a. The price proposal must be submitted separately from that of the Technical proposal, in separate electronic documents.

b. Title the separate Price and Technical proposal files as follows:

W912UM20R0001_COMPANY_PRICE

W912UM20R0001_COMPANY_TCHL

Price and Technical proposals shall be submitted online via DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) utilizing the following website: https://safe.apps.mil/. Within 14 days of proposal due date, you should send an email to jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil requesting to receive an URL of DoD SAFE, with a Claim Password.

Using the provided URL of DoD SAFE, you will be allowed to have access to the DoD SAFE for uploading your proposal. Failure to request a DoD SAFE claim password timely will result in your offer not being received timely. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the documents are uploaded prior to the solicitation closing date.

The “Short Note to the Recipients” shall include the solicitation Number-Contractor Name, e.g.

W912UM20R0001-FED Construction Co., Ltd.

Recipient information: The recipient of the online submission shall be Ms. Jennifer I. Ko, jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil as well as the POF CT proposals inbox, pof-ct-proposals@usace.army.mil.

https://www.beta.sam.gov/ https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil mailto:jennifer.i.ko@usace.army.mil mailto:pof-ct-proposals@usace.army.mil

Proposals submitted by any other means will be rejected.

Size Limitations on Uploads: Being able to upload files larger than 2 GB depends on the browser being used. If at all possible, use a modern 64-bit browser on a 64-bit operating system. If you only have a 32-bit system (the most common cause is Windows 7), then use a modern version of Google Chrome or Firefox. Older versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer are particularly bad at this. If updating your browser is not an option and the combined size of all files being uploaded exceeds 2 GB, split the files into smaller pieces (e.g. using the Split option in WinZip or “Split to volumes” option in 7-Zip) and upload them in separate drop-offs. The DoD SAFE software itself has configurable limits on the amount of data that can be uploaded in a single drop-off. Even for browsers that support uploads larger than 2 GB, drop off may not exceed 8.0 GB per file, or 8.0 GB total for the entire drop-off.

c. Submit and organize submittals in separate files as follows:

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal Factor 1. Past Experience –Prime Contractor Factor 2. Past Performance Factor 3. Organization and Management Plan

Volume 2 (Factor 4). – Price Proposal

Tab 1 Proposal Cover Sheet Tab 2 Section 00 10 00 SF1442 Tab 3 Section 00 10 00 Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule Tab 4 Representations and Certifications Tab 5 Bonding Capability Letter Tab 6 Facility Clearance (FCL) - Security Qualification letter Tab 7 Signed/Approved Joint Venture Agreement

d. 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 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition.

d. Closing Deadline for Submissions.

Proposals must be received by the Government (see paragraph 4 herein) no later than the date and time - Korean Standard Time (KST) - specified in Block 13 of the Solicitation’s Standard Form (SF) 1442, or any amendment to the SF 1442.

e. Requests for Clarifications.

Prospective Offerors shall submit contracting and technical inquiries and questions concerning this solicitation document via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet.

a. To submit and review bid inquiry items, offerors will need to be a current registered user or self-register into the system. To self-register, go to the aforementioned web page and click on the BID tab. Select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the Bidder Inquiry Key for this solicitation listed below, your email address, and then click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on the next screen is correct and click continue.

b. From this page, you may view all bidder inquiries or add a new inquiry.

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

http://www.projnet.org/projnet

Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected. Offerors should select FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) in comment classification when creating inquiry.

The Solicitation Number is: W912UM20R0001 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: Q6WP73-7NWJBV

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries 15 calendar days prior to the date and time for receipt of proposals as specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442 in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

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

The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

mailto:staff@rcesupport.com

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.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many of 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 were 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 rating 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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHIC

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S

H BEST REFLECTS

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 agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

W912UM20R0001

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

Section 00 22 16

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made based on the proposal that represents the best value to the Government after all factors are considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Technical (Factors 1 and 2) and Past Performance (Factor 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price (Factor 4).

Factor Description Relative Importance 1 Past Experience Prime Contractor Most Important 2 Past Performance Less import than Factor 1 3 Organization & Management Less important than Factor 2 4 Price Significantly less important to all non-price factors combined

Tab 1 Proposal Cover Sheet N/A Tab 2 SF 1442, Signed SF 1442 with all amendment(s) acknowledged N/A

Tab 3 CLIN Schedule – Section 00 10 00 N/A Tab 4 Representations & Certifications N/A Tab 5 Bonding Capability Responsibility

Tab 6 FCL-Security Qualification Responsibility

Tab 7 Joint Venture Agreement Responsibility

3. Evaluation of Proposal for Facility Clearance (FCL) Requirements

Facility Clearance (FCL) - Security Qualification. In order to be eligible for award, the Offeror must possess at the date and time specified in the request for proposal, a Department of Defense (DoD) Secret Facility Clearance Level (FCL) issued in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), DoD 5220.22-M. A Multiple Facility Organization (MFO), as defined in the NISPOM, must possess a DoD Secret FCL. If the Offeror is a joint venture, all of the joint venture members must possess a minimum Secret FCL at the time the joint venture submits its proposal.

No further consideration will be made if an offeror doesn’t have the required facility clearance at the time of submission of the technical and price proposal.

4. Evaluation of Proposals for Factors 1, 2 and 3

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation.

5. VOLUME 1 - FACTOR 1: PAST EXPERIENCE – PRIME CONTRACTOR

The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s relevant experience in completing projects that are similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the construction work required by the Solicitation, based on the up to five (5) demonstration project examples provided. If an Offeror submits a proposal as a JV, the Government will evaluate the experience of the proposed JV team in light of the stated roles in performing this project proposed for each member of the JV team. When assessing an Offeror’s relevant experience, the Government may give greater weight to proposals that include a greater number of relevant construction projects for new facilities with SCIF floor space that exceeds 10,000 SF, that have been constructed to ICD 705 or higher standards such as DSS, and whose project scope included construction of underground utilities, the facility’s shell structure, and related civil work. Projects completed for the Federal Government may be given greater relevance in the descending order of USACE awarded projects, projects awarded by other DoD agencies, and DoS awarded projects. All may be considered more relevant than projects completed for commercial customers. More recently completed projects may be considered to be more relevant; a recent project is defined as having been completed within the last 5 years from the date of the Offeror’s proposal, or if ongoing at that time, at least physically 50% complete.

6. VOLUME 1 - FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Relevancy Determination: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. The Government will evaluate past performance for similarity of projects in terms of size, scope and complexity in relation to this proposed project, and how recent the past performance information is. The relevancy determination will be based on submitted projects for Factor 1 – Past Experience, Evaluation Criteria.

The following are the relevancy determination definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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.

b. Confidence Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will review the past performance information available, to include CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer.

In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised);

and trend data will be considered. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

The following are the confidence determination definitions:

Past Performance information about projects completed closer in time to the closing date for submission of proposals under this Solicitation will be considered to be more recent and relevant than past performance information about earlier projects.

7. VOLUME 1 - FACTOR 3: ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed team organization for executing the work required in the Solicitation, how it is proposed to be organized and structured, the relationships, hierarchy and respective project officials' functions and, responsibilities between the prime and subcontractors and major suppliers/vendors, and how the organization will be staffed to execute the entire scope of required work, in order to assess the degree of likelihood that the Offeror will successfully complete the project. The organization and management plan will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the team’s resources, including the planned mix of prime and subcontractor workforce beyond the minimums required under Clause 52.236-1 and Section 00 73 00, Supplementary Conditions, Provision 29, will be used under the contract to ensure timely contract performance at the required level of quality.

In accordance with the page limitation in Section 00 21 16, Factor 3, Organization and Management Plan, any pages beyond the first ten (10) will not be evaluated.

8. VOLUME 2 - FACTOR 4: PRICE

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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 facto 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Offeror’s proposed price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable, using one or more of the price analysis techniques found at FAR 15.404-1(b).

Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate price proposal in greater detail the Government may request a breakdown in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown if requested. This information will not be needed earlier than three (3) working days after the proposal submission due date. When submitting this information, the Offeror shall not revise its Technical or Price proposals.

Failure to provide evidence of bonding capability equal to or exceeding the Offeror’s proposed price will render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

9. Definitions and ratings

a. Combined Technical Ratings Definitions.

b. Definitions

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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.

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

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

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

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

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

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non- 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).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non- Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated findings (strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties).

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

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 source RFP requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)