W912WJ-17-R-0002_-_Amendment_0001.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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise portions of the solicitation and provide answ ers to RFI's. Additional information is provided for base access for the scheduled site visit. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Feb-2017

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 W912WJ-17-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jan-2017

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 is extended, X 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 1 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

07-Feb-2017

CODE

US ARMY ENGR DISTRICT, NEW ENGLAND

696 VIRGINIA ROAD

CONCORD MA 01742-2751

W912WJ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912WJ-17-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

Solicitation Revisions

Revised Sections and Paragraphs of the Solicitation are as follows:

Sections 0010 – Solicitation Contract Form

Under A. Proposal Submission Requirements, #4. Content Requirement, (a) Phase 1, Factor 1:

Team Experience, 6th Para, the following has been added:

If the Joint Venture is an SBA approved mentor/protégé, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed either by the mentor, the protégé, or the Joint Venture entity. The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors contemplating a Joint Venture shall show evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required. Failure to submit evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required will be considered unacceptable. If the mentor/ protégé partnership does not have experience, at least one project shall be submitted for each partner.

RFI

1. Section 00100 paragraph 5. Phase 1 Factor 1, notes that projects submitted for review / evaluation under this factor must be physically complete within the last five years. As you know, the national economy was greatly effected in 2009-2012, we request this be "look back" period be extend to seven years.

Response: Under Section 00100, A. Proposal Submission Requirements, #4. Content Requirement, (a) Phase 1, Factor 1: Team Experience, 9th Para, the following has been changed to:

Projects provided must be physically complete within the past seven (7) years or will be physically complete within 180 days of proposal submission.

2. Section 00100 paragraph 5, Phase 1 Factor 1, notes that additional consideration will be given to projects over $15,000,000. As this is a small business set aside, we request this requirement be reduced to $8,500,000. This will be more reflective of the SMEF project.

Response: Under Section 00100, A. Proposal Submission Requirements, #4. Content Requirement, (a) Phase 1, Factor 1: Team Experience, 10th Para (6th bullet), the project value is changed to $10,000,000.

3. Page 39 of 92 state there will be a site visit scheduled for 2/10/17. Is this correct? Since this is a Phase 1 submission only, it has been our experience that the site visit is normally scheduled after the selection of the phase 2 contractors.

Response: Site visit date and time will remain as stated under FAR Clause .52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB 1995). An additional site visit will be scheduled during Phase 2.

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFO

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

(Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offeror)

1. Introduction

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with an accompanying digital copy, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

For Phase 1, the Offeror’s proposal shall consist of one (1) volume. The Volume shall be titled “Phase 1 Technical Factors 1, 2 & 3” and shall address all technical factor requirements.

For Phase 2, the Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The first Volume shall be titled “Phase 2 Technical Factors 4 & 5” and shall address all technical factor requirements. The second volume shall be titled “Phase 2 Factor 6 Price, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations " and shall address price, solicitation, offer and award documents and certifications/representations.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements of the scope with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements

Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) shall be of a different color and shall have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 3).

Printing shall be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape oriented.

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME TITLE PRINTED

COPIES

DIGITAL

COPIES

PAGE

LIMIT

Phase 1 Technical Factors 1, 2 & 3 Original + 3 1 75 Phase 2 Technical Factors 4 & 5 Original + 3 1 120 Phase 2 Factor 6 Price, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations

Original + 1 1 N/A

NOTE: All pages, including cover letters, Table of Contents Pages, tables, illustrations, and appendices (but not divider tabs that are free of content) will be counted in the page calculation. Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed, and will not be evaluated by the Government.

3. Proposal File Format and Packaging

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents shall be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc/docx) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11X17 page counts as two pages.

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal electronic files shall be in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks and USB drives are not permitted. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. ** In addition, copies of all files in PDF format shall also be provided. All price breakdown information to aid in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern.

4. Content Requirement

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

a. Phase 1, Factor 1: Team Experience

This volume titled “Phase 1 Technical Factors 1, 2 & 3”, Factor 1, shall provide a brief (no more than 5 pages) narrative and graphical representation (organizational chart) of the Offeror’s proposed team showing the prime contractor and all subcontractors expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort. Offerors may also identify subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate recent and relevant experience under this evaluation factor. The organizational chart shall clearly define the contractual relationships among the team members. The narrative shall describe each of the members of the proposed team, including each member of a joint venture or partnership; the rationale for the proposed arrangement; and the roles and responsibilities of each member of the team.

As applicable, Offerors must submit a signed copy of their Joint Venture agreement, partnership agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team in order to receive credit for their experience and/or past performance. Failure to submit an agreement or letter of commitment, as appropriate, will disqualify the offeror from the competition for award.

Submit a maximum of five (5) projects for the Offeror’s team that best demonstrate its experience on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, dollar value and complexity to the RFP. If the Prime Contractor is neither the Construction Contractor nor the DOR, the Prime Contractor must also submit projects demonstrating its experience on recent and relevant projects. For each project, Offerors shall provide a completed Experience/Past Performance Questionnaire with Factor 2, as set forth in Appendix A. At least one Experience/Past Performance Questionnaire shall be provided for each team member.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have experience, at least one project shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If the Joint Venture is an SBA approved mentor/protégé, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed either by the mentor, the protégé, or the Joint Venture entity. The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors contemplating a Joint Venture shall show evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required. Failure to submit evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA's approval is required will be considered unacceptable.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates, subsidiaries.

Parent, LLC, LTD member companies (if the name of affiliate is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The maximum number of projects that may be submitted is five (5), regardless of the number of subcontractors or joint venture partners.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated.

Projects provided must be physically complete within the past seven (7) years or will be physically complete within 180 days of proposal submission.

Additional consideration may be given for submitted projects that meet any or all of the following criteria:

• A single project which included both the design and construction

(aka Design-Build) of a new, multi-story office building that is a minimum of 30,000 Square Feet (SF).

• Have achieved a minimum of LEED Silver rating

• A facility designed as permanent construction in accordance with

DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01 and General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02

• A facility designed and constructed to comply with DoD minimum Antiterrorism Standards for buildings per UFC 4-010-01

• Building structure of steel and/or reinforced masonry or concrete

• Have a value of at least $10,000,000

• Work performed for US Department of Defense agencies.

NOTE: Projects completed for the US Army Corps of Engineers will be considered more relevant than those completed for other US Government Agencies, which will be considered more relevant than those completed for other customers.

Projects submitted that do not meet all of the above criteria will be considered, but may not be considered fully relevant and the Offeror may not receive the highest rating for this factor.

A project is defined as a project performed under a single task order or contract which included both design and construction. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

b. Phase 1, Factor 2: Past Performance

This volume titled “Phase 1 Technical Factors 1, 2 & 3”, Factor 2, shall provide the Offeror’s past performance on the projects submitted in Factor 1, Team Experience. This factor shall include the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted, as well as any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government through other available sources.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall submit – and for any additional projects identified as relevant by the Offeror.

Offerors may submit past performance information as follows:

(1) For Federal Government projects, provide the contract number, contract place of performance, CAGE code and DUNS number;

(2) In the case of Indefinite Deliver type contracts, GSA contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order numbers;

(3) Federal Government contracting activity, address, Contracting Officer’s name, email address and telephone number;

For non-Federal Government projects and commercial Projects, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), as set forth in Appendix A, must be completed and submitted.

The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the Experience/Past Performance Questionnaire and send to the client. The client shall complete Blocks 5-8 along with the two page questionnaire and return to the Offeror in a sealed envelope.

The Offeror shall insert the sealed envelope in its proposal.

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the 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). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references’ unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

An Offeror may not establish past performance based on individual or key personnel performance, apart from the Offeror’s entity that is proposing.

Offerors will be reminded that the Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available and has the right to contact customers other than those listed by the Offeror to evaluate past performance.

The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

c. Phase 1, Factor 3: Conceptual Technical Approach

This volume titled “Phase 1 Technical Factors 1, 2 & 3”, Factor 3, shall contain the Offeror’s Conceptual Technical Approach. Offerors shall provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s “Conceptual Technical Approach” to executing this design-build contract. Clearly and concisely describe the technical approach through project execution. Limit the information to four (4) pages or less and, at a minimum, address the information required in the paragraphs below.

a. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: Describe the technical approach to the design and construction of this facility.

Include design and construction considerations relevant to this project.

In Phase 2, the offeror will describe this approach in greater detail.

This level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

b. Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: Briefly describe interactions with the design-build team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design and construction addressing, as a minimum, management of design reviews, maintaining management of the design during construction, and shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals.

Also discuss how the offeror’s management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control.

d. Phase 2, Factor 4: Management Approach

This volume titled “Phase 2 Technical Factors 4 & 5”, Factor 4, shall contain the Offeror’s Management Approach. The Offeror’s Management Approach shall include, at a minimum:

(1) An organizational chart and narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative must:

• Identify all offices involved in this contract, and;

• Identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location and how they are related, to include all proposed subcontractors and consultants, including lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract;

• Clearly show the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control (design and construction) and Safety Organization, including all JV Partners and proposed subcontractors, when applicable.

(2) Identify key personnel and provide qualifications for personnel who will perform the following functions: project management, quality control management, and safety management. The proposal shall clearly indicate whether the personnel are employees of the contractor, designer of record, subcontractor(s), or joint venture, where applicable.

(3) Submit a proposed project schedule (Gantt Chart or bar chart created using MS Project or similar scheduling software) and narrative describing how the Offeror will proceed with the project from start to finish for the design and construction of this project. The schedule shall identify and include schedule milestones, critical design and construction submittals, critical material procurements, representation of any fast tracking of construction (if applicable) and overall critical Definable Features of Work (DFOW), including quality control turnover inspection requirements. Government review periods, activity durations, and constraints shall be clearly identified.

The schedule shall identify the critical path and the length of the schedule must be equal to the contract or shorter with appropriate rationale. For proposal preparation purposes, the Offeror shall assume a Notice to Proceed date of 15 September 2017 and that the base bid and any options will be exercised at time of award.

(4) Discuss approach to subcontractor relationships. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this solicitation, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. The Offeror shall also submit a letter of commitment for each proposed subcontractor.

(5) Discuss how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team.

Discuss quality control lines of authority between Subcontractors and the prime contractor. Specifically, discuss the coordination and management of the design, the design submittal reviews, and management of design during construction.

(6) Discuss the Offeror's experience and description of its Management Information System (MIS) (or equivalent) capabilities regarding tracking, planning and scheduling, cost estimating, budgeting and accounting reports, technical and regulatory reports, submittals and other relevant data.

(7) Offerors should identify any additional and/or unique management advantages its proposal provides to the Government.

(8) Offerors to provide Personnel Qualifications to support qualification.

Résumés shall be provided for all positions included in the chart below, including name, employee’s position description, education, and qualifying academic, design, construction, Professional Registration and/or Government experience. To receive a rating of “Acceptable,” positions must meet the relevant experience requirement below. Relevant Experience is considered to be experience in the respective position on projects of the same size, scope, price and complexity.

Position Registration * Relevant Experience

Required (years)* Project Manager -- 10 Site Superintendent -- 10 Site Safety and Health Officer

OSHA 30 5

Contract Quality Control Supervisor

-- 5

Commissioning Specialist

-- 10

Design Manager

e. Phase 2, Factor 5: Detailed Technical Approach

This volume titled “Phase 2 Technical Factors 4 & 5”, Factor 5, shall contain the Offeror’s Detailed Technical Approach.

The offeror shall provide a clear narrative and design drawings to describe the following site/building design and engineering system features:

Civil/Site Geotechnical/Structural Architectural/Interior Design/LEED Mechanical Electrical

The technical proposal shall also note any improvements exceeding the solicitation requirements or betterments provided.

a. Civil/Site – Due to the constraint of the physical size of the site and the proximity to the existing HAFB facility, the proposal shall describe the site clearances and circulation; staging and storage; and the proposed plans to limit vehicular and HAFB staff impact, to include parking and access, due to construction activities.

b. Geotechnical/Structural – Based on the borings provided, describe the geotechnical and structural approach to construct the building to meet the UFC requirements for the building. Specific information regarding how the Offeror intends to deal with peat and organic soils and the loose unconsolidated sands identified in the borings shall be addressed and to minimize the removal of rock.

c. Architectural/Interior Design/LEED – Describe the proposed exterior building façade and proposed interior layout and how it meets or exceeds solicitation requirements. Describe the design, including the functional relationship of the proposed floor plans. Proposal shall include a discussion describing the application of this project in the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Version 4.0 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System. LEED Certification and a final LEED rating of “Silver” is a mandatory project requirement.

d. Mechanical – Describe the proposed engineering solutions for the project including fire protection, HVAC, Building Management System, plumbing systems, and tying into existing primary utility distribution systems, and how the offeror intends to meet or exceed the solicitation requirements.

e. Electrical – Describe the proposed engineering solutions for the project including lighting, telecommunications, fire alarm, and tying into existing primary utility distribution systems, and how the offeror intends to meet or exceed the solicitation requirements.

f. Phase 2, Factor 6: Price

This volume titled “Phase 2 Factor 6: Price, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations” shall contain the Offeror’s Proposal Price. The Offeror’s proposed price shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. There is no page limitation for this volume.

(1) The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF1442 and bid schedule.

(2) Each offeror is required to complete (in entirety) the bid schedule provided in the solicitation (Division 1 of the RFP).

(3) For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is 15 September 2017.

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature.

• Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442), Solicitation, Offer and Award

• Acknowledgement of Amendments, if any

• Contract Administration Data

• Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Joint Venture Offerors must submit a copy of an executed Joint Venture Agreement that is fully compliant with the small business regulations. Reference Code of Federal Regulations 13 CFR Title Business Credit and Assistance. Joint ventures shall submit the information requested in Appendix B. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties, and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture.

Bid Guarantees in accordance with FAR 52.228-1 will also be submitted in this volume.

B. DISCUSSIONS

1. General Information

In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussions with offerors may be held if necessary. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions. The government intends to award without discussions.

2. Discussion Scheduling

If discussions are necessary, the Offerors will be notified in writing.

C. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors Phase 1: Team Experience, Past Performance, and Conceptual Technical Approach and the Phase 2 factors Management Approach, Detailed Technical Approach, and Price. Phase 1 and 2 factors are listed in descending order of importance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable/Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for all technical factors. Final selection will be based on the best overall proposal in Phase 2 that is determined to be the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the technical and price proposals. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

D. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors.

Offerors will be notified that a maximum of five offerors will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating for each factor with a written narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The following technical factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Team Experience (Phase 1) Factor 2: Past Performance (Phase 1) Factor 3: Conceptual Technical Approach (Phase 1) Factor 4: Management Approach (Phase 2) Factor 5: Detailed Technical Approach (Phase 2) Factor 6: Price (Phase 2)

The technical factors within each phase are listed in descending order of importance. The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price design-build contract.

Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the firm-fixed price effort.

E. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Overall Approach

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Phase 1, Factor 1: Team Experience

This technical factor evaluates the Offeror’s team experience in successfully completing recent and relevant projects. For purposes of evaluation, the Offeror’s team consists of the Offeror and any subcontractors identified. The Offeror’s team members shall consist of the Construction Contractor, Designer of Record (DOR) and the Prime Contractor if the Prime Contractor is neither the Construction Contractor nor the DOR. This factor will be rated using Table 1.

The Offeror will be evaluated on whether the projects submitted are recent and relevant. Recency will be determined by similarity of projects completed within the last five years that are similar to the work described in Section D. Proposal Submission 4.Content Requirement a. Factor 1: Team Experience. Relevancy will be determined by submitted projects which demonstrate experience in performing the requirements identified in Section 4.a. Projects should demonstrate successful completion of the types of work encompassed by all of the criteria identified in Section 4.a. The role and work performed by the Offeror and any subcontractors identified in past projects will be considered when determining relevancy.

In order to be considered acceptable, Offerors must demonstrate recent and relevant experience on similar project(s). Offerors that demonstrate prior successful experience working together with the proposed JV partners and/or subcontractors on projects that are recent and relevant may receive higher consideration for this factor.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

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

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

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

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

3. Phase 1, Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and subcontractor’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements of this solicitation. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of the data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

a. Evaluation of past performance may utilize past performance information available in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) for each project listed by the Offeror, in addition to submitted Past Performance Questionnaires. If no CPARS evaluation exists for projects submitted under Factor 1, evaluation shall utilize the Experience/Past Performance Questionnaire form in Appendix A.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s and subcontractor’s (identified in Factor 1) records of performance as related to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and management of subcontractors. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality which are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment for each offeror.

RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recent past performance will be determined by similarity of projects completed within the last five years.

RELEVANCY: The next aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of scope, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

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.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The quality of the Offeror’s past performance will be assessed on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Experience/Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

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 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Phase 1, Factor 3: Conceptual Technical Approach

The Offerors shall provide a narrative that describes each Offeror’s “Conceptual Technical Approach” to executing this design-build contract per the detailed requirements. Clearly and concisely describe the conceptual technical approach to project execution. This factor will be rated using Table 1.

The offeror must have an effective process for coordinating all efforts during design and construction, including facilitating coordination with the Government. The offeror must have an effective management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the Designers of Record and the Government reviewers.

5. Phase 2, Factor 4: Management Approach

This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach for accomplishing the work. In order to be considered acceptable, Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements in the RFP documents and demonstrate its ability to accomplish those requirements.

Prior to assigning a rating from Table 1 for this factor, the Government will consider whether and to what extent the management approach:

(1) Clearly defines both narratively AND graphically the planned organization structure.

(2) Delineates lines of authority on the organizational chart appropriately and is organized in a precise and logical manner, including the relationship between the headquarters’ office and the site office, including all involved with the management of the contract including subcontractors and joint venture partners (where applicable).

(3) Comprehensively describes the duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and joint ventures, presented as a logical approach to perform the work throughout the contract, including which roles and personnel are identified to communicate with the Government (USACE).

(4) Substantiates that the Offeror clearly understands the contract requirements by describing management for performance of the contract including the planned approach to: start-up / mobilization, quality control, staffing, and obtaining, retaining, coordinating and managing subcontractors.

(5) The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions and constraints which must be considered in the schedule (such as long lead items, logic of proposed phasing, predecessor/successor activities), and contract durations. For the purpose of this schedule, the Offeror shall assume a Notice to Proceed date of 15 September 2017. The schedule will be evaluated to determine the extent the Offeror addresses all elements of the design and construction, and for its consistency with the technical design and construction approach.

The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, level of risk to the Government, and logic. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the plan:

(1) Includes all the elements described in the solicitation;

(2) Is reasonable and logical in relation to this project, and;

(3) Describes a viable strategy to execute the project to achieve the desired quality as described in the solicitation.

6. Phase 2, Factor 5: Detailed Technical Approach

This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical design approach for accomplishing the work described in the solicitation. The technical design information will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and level of risk to the Government as compared to the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted information to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements, and the strength of understanding of and the approach to address the project scope and constraints.

This factor will be rated using Table 1, above.

7. Phase 2, Factor 6: Price

The contract will be a firm-fixed-price design-build contract. The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness for the fixed-price effort through the use of price analysis

A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposal prices offered are fair and reasonable, and that there is no unbalanced pricing.

For purposes of award, price will be evaluated for all unit prices for the base and any and all options as identified in the bid schedule of the RFP. Offerors must submit pricing for all line items. The overall evaluated price for purposes of award will be determined by the total sum of the line items in the bid schedule, to include all options.

8. Final Selection:

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and a price standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the responsible Offeror which the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines has conformed to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered.

a. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the

Offeror selected in accordance with the above procedures. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government

b. In the course of evaluating Offerors' proposals, the SST may contact references submitted by the Offerors. The SST may also check past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offerors. All gathered information will be used to evaluate the Offerors’ overall past performance.

c. At no time during this process, or during the debriefing, or after award, will the names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

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-- Friday, February 10th at 11:00 am Eastern

Participants attending the site visit must submit their name(s) and date of birth to the following POC by end of day on 2/06/2017:

POC: Stephen Jones Email: Stephen.e.jones@usace.army.mil

Failure to provide the required information by 2/06/2017 will result in non admission to the work site.

(c) Participants will meet at—

Hanscom AFB Intersection of Eglin St. and Barksdale St.

Entrance of Existing Building 1604

You will need to provide a valid drivers license or other identification at the Main Gate.

Some state-issued ID cards are no longer acceptable as proof of identity for installation access under the REAL ID Act. This mainly affects visitors requesting short- or long-term visitor passes/DBIDS cards. We recommend that all holders of non-compliant IDs havea second form of photo identification available for base access (such as a passport).

The list of compliant/non-compliant states is managed by the Department of Homeland Security, and it occasionally changes. Two states were recently added to the "non-compliant" list.

Effective 30 Jan 17, state-issued IDs from the following states will be unacceptable as proof of identity for unescorted base access:

-Maine -Montana

Currently unacceptable are:

-Minnesota* -Missouri -Washington* *These states have issued some "Enhanced Driver's Licenses" that are acceptable under REAL ID.

The following states were granted a "limited extension" until 6 Jun 17:

-Alaska -Kentucky -Oklahoma -Oregon -Pennsylvania -South Carolina -Virginia

There are 18 other states/territories that have extensions until 10 Oct 17, to include Massachusetts.

You may obtain information about the REAL ID Act and compliant/non-compliant states and territories from the DHS website at https://www.dhs.gov/current-status-states-territories.

Access control questions specific to Hanscom AFB can be directed to Police Services at 781.225.5605.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)