W912WJ-17-R-0002_-_Solicitation.pdf

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS, SECTION 00600; CONTRACT CLAUSES, SECTION 00700; SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 00800.

THIS SOLICITATION IS SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS, THE APPLICABLE NAICS CODE AND SIZE STANDARD FOR THIS

PROCUREMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

NAICS Code 236220

SIZE $36,500,000.00

NOTE TO BIDDERS: Please pay special attention to Sections: Section 00100 (Instructions to Offerors) Section 00600 (Representations & Certif ications) and Contract Clauses 52.204-7 (System for Aw ard Management) and 252.204-7004 Alt A (System for Aw ard Management).

All Offerors must complete the annual representations and certif ications electronically via the System for Aw ard Management (SAM) w ebsite at https://w w w .sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ or by telephone at 1-866-606-8220. Please ensure your f irm is registered in the SAM Database.

Contractors are requested to review requirements and instructions for Tw o-Phase Design Build Selection in response to this RFP; submit responses to Phase I as stated.

STEPHEN E JONES 978-318-8968

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

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

26-Jan-2017

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______15 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________730 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________Section 0800

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________28 Feb 2017 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

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

D. Offers providing less than _______90 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY ENGR DISTRICT, NEW ENGLAND

696 VIRGINIA ROAD

CONCORD MA 01742-2751

W912WJ

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

978-318-8207FAX:TEL: 978-318-8003 TEL: FAX:

W912WJ-17-R-0002 92

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

NOTICE

Notice to Offerors: THIS IS A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. This solicitation is a two phase Design-Build solicitation. Currently, this solicitation is for Phase 1 proposals only. Phase 1 submissions will be reviewed and a maximum of five of the most highly qualified proposals will be invited to submit Phase 2 proposals. Bid bonds are not required to be submitted until Phase 2 submissions. Additionally, a bid schedule and expanded specifications and details regarding the concept design will be provided during Phase 2 via a solicitation amendment.

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 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 five (5) 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 $15,000,000

• 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.

APPENDIX A

ATTACHMENT: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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. 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 to the Government/Client’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Client. A singular benefit, however, could be of such cost 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/Client’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/Client.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(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…