MATOC DB Offering Instruction and Evaluation.doc

NOTICE OF PROPOSED DESIGN BUILD TASK ORDER

Date: 18 DECEMBER 2009

OFFERED: MATOC Design Build Contractors

Water Distribution System Loop, Rickenbacker Army Enclave, Columbus, Ohio PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Design Build Task Order. The project consists of the design and construction of Request for Proposal (RFP) Design and Construct Water Distribution System Loop, Rickenbacker Army Enclave, Columbus, Ohio. As a result of this Solicitation, the Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task order to the responsible MATOC offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in this offering. The MATOC contractor will be responsible for the design services, labor, materials, equipment, tools, construction equipment, machinery, water, heat, utilities, transportation and all other costs associated with the project. The MATOC contractor will be provided with a Statement of Work that has been developed by the government. The Statement of Work will provide the MATOC contractor with the Government’s design objectives. The MATOC contractor shall not assume that ANY plans provided as part of the Statement of Work are all inclusive of the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work.

This solicitation is for the design, permitting, site preparation, construction of the system. This project will consist of the following tasks: Separate the existing RAE water lines from the old loop system and abandon them in place, ensuring minimal disruption of service to all customers. Replace the abandoned loop system with approximately 6,000’ of new water line. The new line must be capable of providing clean, palatable water to all RAE customers. In addition to meeting the RAE’s domestic needs, the water line must also supply enough water to meet the enclave’s industrial and fire protection needs. The system must be capable of delivering and sustaining approximately 125psi to all customers. All lateral, service branch feeders to RAE facilities must be replaced. The new system must have a master meter. Each serviced facility must have a smart reader that can be remotely read by the City of Columbus. Obtain all Permits. Provide As-Built Drawings, Equipment Warranties, Maintenance Manuals, and all other supporting documentation associated with new RAE water distribution system. Restore the work site to pre-existing work conditions, i.e. repair/replace all asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.

MAGNITUDE OF PROJECT: For this Design build project the Government Cost Objective is $600,000.00 PERFORMANCE PERIOD: 365 Days after receipt of Notice to Proceed

SITE VISIT: A site visit will be conducted on 8 January 2010 at 10:00 AM Rickenbacker Army Enclave, Columbus, Ohio. Information provided at this site visit as well as answers to questions shall not change/qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgment and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply. (see detailed proposal instructions for information on questions)

PERFORMANCE & PAYMENT BONDS: In accordance with Contract Clause 52.228-15, Contractors are reminded that any amount awarded over $25,000 shall require Payment Bonds and awards exceeding $100,000 shall require both Payment and Performance Bonds. All bonds are due no later than 10 days after award.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: (X ) YES or ( ) NO- reference Contract Clause 52.211-12. If yes, the following amounts will be applicable to this TASK ORDER – $452.00 WARRANTY: Contract Clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction Clause is applicable to this task order. All Special Contract Requirements (SC-13 – Design Build) and the clauses contained therein of the basic contract are applicable to the resulting task order.

WAGE DETERMINATION: Currently, General Decision Number OH20080002, dated 12/4/2009, can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon/allstates.html In the event the current prevailing Wage Determination is changed by the Department of Labor prior to closing date of this solicitation it is the offeror’s responsibility to insure the most recent determination is used in preparing the proposal. An Amendment will not be issued prior to closing to change Wage Determination dates and/or numbers. Should the wage rate change after closing, but prior to award the updated Wage Determination will be incorporated by amendment and issued to all offerors submitting a proposal. If applicable, these offerors/contractors will be given an opportunity to provide revised proposals solely to amend proposals due to Wage Determination changes. If the wage determination modification does not change any effected wage rates then the provisions of FAR 22.404-5(c)(4) will apply.

PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-TASK ORDER COSTS. This RFP does not commit the Government to pay costs incurred in preparation and submission of initial and subsequent proposals or for other costs incurred prior to award of a formal task order.

INFORMATION REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF UTILITY SERVICES: It has been determined that NO public utilities are available at the site. The offerors will take this into consideration when computing its offer. (FAR Clause No. 52.236-14, Availability and Use of Utility Services)

AWARD OF TASK ORDER: Offer required acceptance period is 60 days. Award may be delayed a maximum of 60 days after receipt of proposals with no additional cost to the Government.

PROJECT SAFETY: In accordance with FAR 52.236-13, Accident Prevention, construction contractors are required to use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1. Click here to view this manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual BASIS FOR AWARD: See Attached Instructions and Evaluation and Basis for award.

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: All offers are due by 12 FEBRUARY 2010 at 2:00 p.m. at the address shown below. Facsimile proposals will not be accepted.

Mailing Address: USPFO for Ohio, ATTN: AGOH-PF-PC, 2811 West Dublin-Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235-2788 CAUTION: MATOC contractors participating in this solicitation are cautioned to carefully read the solicitation instructions,evlauation and basis for award prior to completing their proposal.

POST AWARD CONSIDERATIONS

After award of the Task Order, but prior to a Notice to Proceed to the final design, a pre-design conference will be conducted. The purpose of this conference is to review the design intent and establish the process by which the design will be delivered. This conference deals only with how the design will be completed.

The Government intends to encourage the formation of a cohesive partnership with the Contractor. This partnership will be structured to draw on the strengths of each organization in order to identify and achieve reciprocal goals. The objective is effective contract performance in achieving completion with budget, on schedule, and in accordance with Plans and Specifications. This partnership between the contractor and the Government will be voluntary and its implementation will not be a part of the contract requirements nor will it result in a change to the contract price or terms.

The MATOC Contractor is responsible for all material and substantiation submittals (DB Submittal Form) being reviewed and approved by Designer of Record with coordination/concurrence of Government Project Manager, COR and Contracting Officer.

The MATOC Contractor is responsible for providing Job Progress Meetings bi-monthly, or as required, taking minutes of these meetings. Copies of minutes are to be distributed to Contracting Officer, Technical Inspector and COR within five (5) calendar days of meetings for approval prior to general distribution.

//SIGNED//

ELAINE M. FARABEE

Contracting Officer Attachments:

Compliance Statement and Price Proposal Form

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS TO MATOC CONTRACTORS

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRES – EXHIBIT A, B, C AND G

EXHIBIT D – COST BREAKDOWN

EXHIBIT E – PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES, DEVIATIONS, BETTERMENTS

MATOC DESIGN BUILD PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

Water Distribution System Loop, Rickenbacker Army Enclave, Columbus, Ohio Compliance Statement. In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate the materials, equipment, methods, functions, and schedules proposed. The offeror is required to certify that all items submitted in its technical proposal comply with the RFP requirements and any differences, deviations or exceptions have been identified and explained. Offerors are required to complete the statement and submit it with their technical proposal. Even if there are no differences, deviations or exceptions, the offeror must submit the Compliance Statement and state that none exist.

Statement of Compliance

[Insert name of the offeror] hereby certifies that all items submitted in this proposal and final design documents (after task order award) comply with the solicitation requirements. The criteria specified in Request for Proposal No. W91364-10-R-0004 are binding contract/task order criteria and in case of any conflict after award, between RFP W91364-10-R-0004 and the contractor's proposal, the Request for Proposal criteria shall govern unless there is a written and signed agreement between the contractor and the Government waiving a specific requirement.

Should this proposal result in the award of a task order this statement will be included on each sheet of drawings and on the cover of the specifications.

Item

Number

Description Quantity Unit

Amount

WATER DISTRIBUTION

LS

SYSTEM LOOP, RAE,

COLUMBUS, OHIO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS

The Offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to this Task Order

Amendment No.

Date

Amendment No.

Date

SIGNATURE:

COMPANY NAME

Name and title of person authorized to sign

Offer Date

Note: Offerors are reminded that unlike the bid process, the request for quotation process is not public. No information will be released until an award decision is made. All contractors submitting an offer will be notified, via email of the award results.

Note: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the task order without discussions with offerors, except for clarifications. Initial proposals should be complete and represent your best offer. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; negotiate with any or all offerors; award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest price (higher technically rated); and award a task order to an offeror submitting a proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government.

Note: Offerors must also submit the required technical proposal information to be considered for award.

DESIGN –BUILD TASK ORDER SOLICITATION

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS TO MATOC CONTRACTORS

1. GENERAL

1.1. This is a design-build, source selection solicitation for WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOOP, RICKENBACKER ARMY ENCLAVE, OHIO. with requirements for Past Performance, Technical Proposals (Written) and Price Proposals. The Contractor is responsible for the form, fit and function of this project. The Government will award a firm fixed-price Task Order to that responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government, considering non cost and cost factors for the best value to the Government. See Basis for award for a complete explanation.

1.2. All questions and requests for information (RFI) must be received in writing via email sent to elaine.farabee@us.army.mil directly for information. Answers will be furnished to all prospective offerors via email in the form of a Q&A document

1.3. All questions and requests for information (RFI) must be received NOT LATER THAN five (5) calendar days prior to closing or will be posted not later than three (3) calendar days prior to closing. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to address questions received after this time following solicitation closing with those offerors in the competitive range should one be established. Any interpretations made will be in the form of an amendment of the solicitation, drawings, specifications, etc., and will be furnished to all prospective offerors via email. For security reasons all potential offerors, plan rooms and printing companies are required to register in Central Contractor’s Registration, www.ccr.gov, and Federal Business Opportunities, www.fbo.gov, in order to view or download the plans or drawings from the web site.

2. SOURCES OF PERSONNEL ON SELECTION BOARD:

2.1. Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as advisors to Source Selection Evaluation Board members in the source selection process. These individuals will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition and from rating proposals or recommending a selection.

Firm

Contact Name

Phone

N/A

2.2. In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the offeror’s proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal. Offerors who fail to execute agreements do solely at their own risk.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT.

3.1. Purpose. These instructions prescribe the format of proposals, and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposed data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

3.2. Offerors are cautioned to submit enough information to enable the Government to fully ascertain each offeror’s capability to perform all of the requirements contemplated by this solicitation. All commitments made in the proposal both written and oral may become a part of the resultant contract. The data submitted with each proposal should be complete and concise, but not overly elaborate.

3.3. Table of Contents. The proposals shall contain a detailed table of contents. The “Table of Contents” will identify major areas, paragraphs and subparagraphs by number and title as well as by page number and volume locations. Tab indexing will be used to identify Sections as appropriate. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each.

3.4. Type Size: Type size for text documents will not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman point 12 font, normal proportional spacing and page size shall be no larger than normal letter size (paper (8 ½” x 11”). Type size for graphics, charts, diagrams and tables, shall be of an appropriate font and size for the application, and must be clearly readable without magnification assistance to the normal eye. Page size for schedules maybe up to 11” x 17” and all other charts, tables etc. must not exceed normal legal size (8 1/2” x 14”). Text lines will be no less than single-space. To the maximum extent practicable proposal submission shall be double sided.

3.5. Binding: Elaborate format and binding are neither necessary nor desirable. All binders, (3 ring type is preferred) will be capable of lying flat when opened. The cover and spine of each binder will clearly identify the offeror’s name, Volume number(s), RFP number, RFP title and copy number, (e.g. copy 2 of 3). The original for each volume will be clearly identified on the cover and the spine. All binders will allow for easy removal and replacement of pages. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each.

3.6. Offeror may elect to submit drawings to clarify their proposals, but are not required to do so by this solicitation. In the event Offeror elects to submit drawings, use drawings no larger than Size A1 [approximately 24" x 36"] and smaller than size A2 [approximately 16" x 23"]. No electronic drawing files are required to be submitted at the proposal stage.

3.7. Offeror may, at the discretion of the Government, be asked to provide clarifications regarding their proposals in accordance with FAR 15.306 (a). Requests for such information does not constitute discussions.

3.8. The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in his/her proposal, including that provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the facts and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected or contract terminated for default if after award.

4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS

4.1. Volume I - Pro Forma and Price Documents- MATOC Contractors shall submit the following in original and three copies.

4.1.1. Executed Compliance Statement.

4.1.2. Price Proposal Information. Offeror shall complete all portions of the Price Proposal Schedule. Offeror’s attention is directed to the section covering Evaluation and Basis for Award for important information concerning pricing.

4.1.3. Include Exhibit D, cost breakdown, in the prescribed format in this package.

4.1.4. Include Exhibit E, Betterment/Deviation schedule in the prescribed format in this package.

4.1.5. Include Executed Non-Disclosure Agreement(s) with Non-Government advisors, see paragraph 2 above.

4.2. Past Performance Information

4.2.1. Include an Exhibit A, Part I Performance Relevancy Questionnaire form, for a minimum of five (5) contracts to a maximum of ten (10).

4.2.2. Include one (I) Exhibit A, Part 2 Performance Relevancy Questionnaire form.

4.2.3. Ensure you send out questionnaires (Exhibit C) to references for each of the contracts discussed on Exhibit A(s) as well as a significant number of other contracts listed. Reference questionnaires MUST be provided back to the Contracting Officer FROM THE REFERENCES, NOT YOU, NLT the closing date for the solicitation.

4.2.4. Offerors lacking relevant Past Performance experience may submit three (3) references for each Predecessor Company, Subcontractor or Key Personnel or resume for key personnel. Include a "Subcontractor Consent and Information Form", Exhibit B for each subcontractor. (Note, if subcontractor was not the Prime on a project referenced need Prime contact information).

4.2.5. Other Past Performance Considerations

4.3. Technical Proposal Volumes 2 and 3 comprise the full Technical Proposal. Volume 2 consists of the Sub factors 2-1 - Project Management Plan and Sub factor 2-2 - Design & Construction Schedule. Volume 3 consists of the Sub factor 2-3 - Technical Data Proposal with various Elements.

4.4. Technical Proposal: Volume 2 – Project Management Plan & Design and Construction Schedule. Provide original and three (3) copies of the requirements in this volume. The following technical sub factors shall be addressed in sufficient detail so as to provide the Government with a clear understanding of the offeror’s intended performance and shall take into consideration the material provided in the technical data proposal (Volume 3).

4.4.1. SUBFACTOR 2-1: Project Management Plan. The offeror shall provide a Management Plan. This is an overall plan showing how the offeror will control the job. The term "management plan" is defined as a plan that includes the following as a minimum:

· Organization and Personnel to include Sub-Contractor Management

· Quality Control Procedures

· Safety Procedures

· Risk assessment of factors and a mitigation plan that may impact budget, quality, or schedule

4.4.1.1. Organization, Management and Subcontractor Management: Discuss lines and authority, responsibilities and communications. Discussion should address how you will respond to management changes. Discuss your team and corporate support. Provide the names, resumes, and levels of responsibility of the principal managers and technical personnel who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day design and construction activities. Provide qualifications of key project personnel including name and project assignment, and firm association. Project key personnel shall include the engineering disciplines and key construction subcontractors listed below.

4.4.1.2. As a minimum, discuss the project manager; the project architect; the engineers responsible for civil, electrical and mechanical design; the quality control manager; and the construction manager and/or project superintendent, as applicable to this project.

4.4.1.3. Demonstrate that all lead design personnel are registered and/or certified in their discipline and have experience and technical competence in assigned roles on projects of similar complexity, size and scope.

4.4.1.4. If subcontractors will be providing comprehensive design-build services to the Offeror, provide qualifications for their key design personnel as well. If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes of the alternative professionals in each assignment. Describe your plans for management of these subcontractors.

4.4.1.5. Key construction subcontractors shall include, but are not limited to: the following subcontractors: excavators, asphalt/concrete, plumbing and electrical, as applicable. Discuss the extent of their roles with respect to the design and construction phases of this project. Except for the design team or prime construction contractor, as applicable, multiple subcontractors may be named for the same discipline but is limited to a maximum of 3 subcontractors per discipline. Describe your plans for management of these subcontractors.

4.4.1.6. Quality Control Procedures. The Quality Control Plan is part of the Management Plan. The alliance of the project designer and builder on a project such as this, naturally removes one commonly used method of quality control, that is, the usual reliance on the owner or the design consultant for monitoring construction quality. Although the Government will provide an on-site representative during construction, offeror’s are expected to develop a formal program of monitoring to ensure a high level of design and construction quality.

4.4.1.7. Offerors shall submit a brief summary of the Quality Control plan that will be implemented if awarded this contract. The offeror's summary shall also include as a minimum the following characteristics:

4.4.1.8. A clear identification of the personnel responsible for quality control and a clear policy establishing their authority. The quality control group shall be separate and apart from (not the same) the people that are doing the construction.

4.4.1.9. The plan for review, evaluation, and Offeror Quality Control of the Design Submittals prior to Government receipt.

4.4.1.10. The plan for review of submittals and extensions of design. Of particular interest is the role of the Designer of Record in all design and construction progress.

4.4.1.11. Procedures for involving Key Subcontractors in the design development. Procedures for successful integration of the Offeror’s Quality Control Program with the Government’s Quality Assurance Program.

4.4.1.12. Safety Procedures.

4.4.1.13. Provide a brief summary of the Safety plan that you will be implemented if you are awarded this contract.

4.4.1.14. Risk Assessment: Identify the risks associated with the project that may impact budget, quality, or schedule. Provide a Risk assessment and a mitigation plan on the factors you have identified.

4.4.2. SUBFACTOR 2-2: Design and Construction Schedule. Provide an integrated preliminary Design and Construction Schedule with all “Fast Tracking” areas clearly identified, if proposed. The NTP date to be used in the development of the Schedule is 1 April 2010.

4.4.2.1. The schedule for design and construction shall be task oriented, indicating dates by which milestones are to be achieved. The offeror shall use a critical path scheduling approach and the schedules shall be graphically represented, not to exceed a type A1 sheet.

4.4.2.2. The schedule is to be an integrated and networked multi-layered schedule of program/project tasks. It identifies project events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. Each major task will be directly traceable to the requirements of the project. These dates are based on the calendar dates provided as the starting point and the logical flow of dates provided by calculating the addition of duration of all tasks using typical schedule networking tools. All tasks/activities in the schedule should be logically linked together showing predecessor/successor relationships.

4.4.2.3. The offeror shall also submit a rationale explaining how the schedules will be achieved. Offeror’s providing an alternate schedule* shall discuss the perceived benefits to the Government.

4.4.2.4. In accordance with FAR 52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK, ALT. I:

The Contractor shall be required to:

(a) Commence work under this contract within 10 days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed,

(b) Prosecute the work diligently, and

(c) Complete the entire work, to include design and construction, ready for use not later than 365 calendar days after Notice to Proceed (NTP). The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.

* The performance period proposed cannot exceed the number of calendar days noted above. If the offeror proposes a shorter performance period, the offeror’s proposed performance period will be used to calculate the new completion date and incorporated into any resulting award

4.5. Technical Proposal Volume 3– Technical Data Provide original and three (3) copies of the requirements in this volume

4.5.1. Technical Sub factor 2-3, Technical Data Proposal. Technical Data Proposal shall be submitted in separate three-ring binders labeled Volume 3 - Technical Data Proposal". This proposal consists of but is not limited to; design documents, sketches, outline specifications, design analysis, catalog cuts, and other information. Provide four (4) copies of the drawings, if included (size A1); and four (4) copies of catalog cuts and other technical data.

4.5. The required information, in Elements 1 through 4, shall be submitted as part of the Technical Sub factor 2-3, Technical Data Proposal.

· ELEMENT-1: Water Distribution System Installation Plan Submittal Requirements.

· ELEMENT-2: Water Distribution System Installation Regulatory Criteria Submittal Requirements.

· ELEMENT-3: Water Distribution System Installation Interagency and Public Coordination Submittal Requirements.

· ELEMENT-4: Simplicity of Project Execution Submittal Requirements.

4.5. Offeror’s are advised that the required data listed below will be utilized for technical review and evaluation and used for determination of a "Quality and Performance Risk Rating" by the Government Evaluation Team. Materials indicated in the design/construction criteria, but not indicated in the offeror's specifications, will be assumed to be included and a part of the proposal. If drawings are provided, do not depict items that are not part of the offer (i.e.: furniture, wall hangings, etc).

4.5. Offeror’s are reminded that all proposed deviations, betterments, and alternatives shall be identified and discussed within each technical data element. As well as listed on the Exhibit E. If proposed, deviations, betterments and alternatives, from the design and construction criteria, shall include a graphic description of the proposed.

4.5. The following elements will be evaluated based on the material provided to meet the technical data requirements:

4.5. ELEMENT-1: Water Distribution System Installation Plan Submittal Requirements. The water distribution system plan portion of the proposal must demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirements needed to meet the needs of the Ohio Army National Guard. The offeror must include a detailed description of the factors and planning processes used to determine the best course of action for the abandonment of the existing water distribution system and the installation of the new RAE water distribution system. How and where does the offeror intend to sever the connections to the old water distribution system? How will the offeror ensure the safety of the Ohio Air National Guard and Rickenbacker International Airport customers still utilizing the existing water distribution system? A detailed description of the proposed water distribution system is required. Conceptual Drawings and Equipment Specification Sheets for the distribution system proposed by the offeror will also be included in the plan. The specification sheets must show how the components of the proposed water distribution system relate to one another and how they function, i.e. describe how the system works. Outline the system’s maintenance requirements. Also, provide any published trouble-shooting guide and equipment technical assistance representative contact information for the equipment proposed in the plan. The narrative must also include a preventative maintenance checks and services schedule along with a preventative maintenance checklist for any relevant components of the system. Any operating instructions, manuals, training requirements, etc. required to maintain or operate any relevant components of the proposed water distribution system will be included. How and where will the new RAE water distribution system connect to the City of Columbus’ water line? How will the offeror ensure the safety of the City of Columbus’ water customers during the connection process? A conceptual drawing showing the new RAE water distribution system must be included as part of the submittal. The submittal must include pipe, hydrant, backflow prevention equipment, and shutoff valve specifications. The proposal must include metering schematics and meter specifications. How does the offeror intend to safely provide clean water to the RAE customers during construction with minimal service interruption? How does the offeror intend to provide the required 125 psi to all RAE facilities? How does the offeror intend to meet the metering requirements outlined in the scope of work? How does the offeror intend to ensure that the proposed RAE system will meet all of the facilities domestic, industrial, and fire protection water requirements? The offeror must also include a list of equipment and personnel required to accomplish the work. The offeror must indicate which assets are organic to the company. For those assets, which are not organic to the company, the offeror must discuss how they intend to acquire the assets required to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Work. A timeline outlining critical project milestones must be included as part of the plan. Answering all of these questions and providing the required drawings and specifications demonstrates the offeror’s thorough understanding of the overall project requirements and their ability to meet the OHARNG’s requirements.

4.5. ELEMENT-2: Water Distribution System Installation Regulatory Criteria Submittal Requirements. Any regulatory requirements that must be met to disconnect and abandon old water distribution system and to install and operate the new RAE water distribution system must be included in the plan, i.e. a discussion of how the offeror plans to obtain the required Permit to Install (PTI) and the General Construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to include the prerequisite Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), must be included in the plan. How and when does the offeror intend to incorporate the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and the City of Columbus into the planning process? Any regulatory requirements that must be met to operate the system must also be included in the plan, i.e. describe the licenses, permits, operator qualifications, etc. required to operate the system. The submittal must also include a discussion of any municipal regulatory requirements that must be met to connect the proposed system to the City of Columbus’ water line. A discussion of the regulatory requirements that must be met to ensure the safety of the domestic water supply throughout the duration of the project must be included in the submittal. How does the offer intend to demonstrate to the OEPA that the drinking water supply is safe? What water testing requirements must be met to satisfy regulatory requirements? A timeline outlining critical regulatory milestones must be included as part of the plan. Answering all of these questions demonstrates the offeror’s thorough understanding of the overall regulatory requirements and their ability to work with the regulatory authorities.

4.5. Water Distribution System Interagency and Public Coordination Submittal Requirements. The offeror must include an interagency coordination plan as part of the submittal. The plan must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to recognize who the key partners are and what role they play in successfully completing the project. How and when does the offeror intend to incorporate each partner into the planning process? What potential challenges will each partner bring to the table and how does the offeror intend to overcome these challenges. What role does the public play in the connection of the proposed RAE water distribution system? What methodology will the offeror utilize to ensure competing interests do not derail or delay the completion of the project? A timeline outlining critical interagency coordination milestones must be included as part of the submittal. Answering all of these questions demonstrates the offeror’s ability to deal with the complexities of public and interagency relationships and how they relate to the successful completion of large scale public works projects.

4.5. ELEMENT-4: Simplicity of Project Execution Submittal Requirements. Simplicity of Project Execution Narrative. Included in the narrative is to be a discussion of the complexity of the entire project. Describe the methods and plans for coordinating the various phases (design, permitting, construction, etc.) of the project in order to minimize construction timeline. The narrative should also include a discussion of any potential issues (regulatory, operational, etc.) that may impact the ability of the offeror to complete the project in a timely manner or that may impact the ability of the OHARNG to operate and maintain the water distribution system after project completion. The offeror will discuss any potential disruptions of operations at RAE due to construction requirements and provide plans to minimize these disruptions. The offeror will also include a discussion of any cost and/or saving initiatives that the offeror plans to realize during the execution of the project.

4.6. PRICE Proposal Requirements

4.6.1. Offeror’s shall complete all portions of the Price Proposal Schedule. Include Exhibit D, cost breakdown, in the prescribed format and Include Exhibit E, Betterment/Deviation schedule in the prescribed format.

4.6.2. The availability of funding for his project is approximately $600,000.00. Proposals which slightly exceed this amount will not be considered unaffordable, by definition, and will be evaluated on a source selection trade-off basis as described by the evaluation criteria and basis of award contained in this solicitation. However, where a proposal exceeds the $600,000.00 affordability figure by more than a slight amount, the risk of the offeror's proposal being assessed as unaffordable, and therefore ineligible for award, will progressively increase the greater the extent to which the proposal exceeds $600,000.00.

4.6.3. Offeror’s who cannot achieve the cost objective based on the criteria documents and propose deviations for Government consideration should first propose the requirement as specified in the Government documents. Each deviation shall include an explanation of why the Offeror believes the deviation is necessary. Also see Price Evaluation this section.

4.6.4. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimum requirements. Innovative, creative, or cost saving proposals that meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged and will receive consideration accordingly. Deviations from space and adjacency requirements are discouraged unless the change results in a significant improvement to the facility in the Government’s opinion. Deviations from any requirements should be clearly noted and justified in the proposal.

4.6.5. Items offered by the proposal, exceeding or deviating from the RFP minimum requirements, shall be clearly identified as a “Betterment” or “Deviation” and noted on the drawings, if provided, and included in a proposal betterments/deviation schedule as appropriate. Exhibit E has been provided to facilitate the listing of Deviations, betterments and alternatives. Offeror’s are cautioned to read the Exhibit E instruction carefully. The following applies to all the Technical Data proposal requirements.

4.6.6. Betterments must be listed separately for each of the elements on the Exhibit E. The offer will be evaluated on the benefit, desirability and affordability to the Government of the Betterments proposed. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject a Betterment based on desirability, affordability and mission needs. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject any Betterment without discussion. The Government will list all accepted betterments in the price schedule in the awarded contract.

4.6.7. Deviations. The Offeror shall provide a list of all deviations, on the Exhibit E, deemed necessary by the Offeror, to achieve cost limitations, meet statutory requirements, and/or are mandatory due to technical flaws in the solicitation (i.e. performance, structural integrity, safety, maintainability, applicable code requirements, etc) in order to deliver the intended basic requirements of the solicitation. Offeror’s who desire to propose deviations for Government consideration should first propose the requirement as specified in the Government documents. Each deviation shall include an explanation of why the Offeror believes the deviation is necessary. Costs and or credits, by item, shall be listed by the offeror on an Exhibit E. The Government will list all accepted deviations in the price schedule in the awarded contract.

4.6.8. Pre-award value engineering alternatives: Innovative, creative, or cost saving proposals that meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged and will receive consideration accordingly. Offeror’s who desire to propose alternatives for Government consideration, are encouraged to do so, but should first propose the requirement as specified in the Government documents. Each alternative shall include an explanation of what the benefits are and why the Offeror believes the alternative is in the best interest of the Government. Acceptance of these proposed alternatives will be at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject any offeror provided alternative without discussion. Costs and or credits, by item, shall be listed by the offeror on an Exhibit E. The Government will list all accepted alternatives in the price schedule in the awarded contract.

4.6.9. Acceptance of these proposed alternatives/deviations or betterments will be at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject alternatives/deviations or betterments based on desirability and mission needs. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject any alternatives/deviations or betterments without discussion. Only accepted Credits or Costs associated with alternatives/deviations or betterments will be considered in the award determination. Accepted credits or costs will be added/deducted from the proposed price, if applicable, to determine the offeror’s evaluated price.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION:

1.1. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price Task Order.

1.2. The government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the RFP's requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government.

1.2.1. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical features and cost to the Government. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance in determination of the most advantageous proposal. This may result in award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror where the Government determines that the benefits of the higher-priced offeror outweigh the cost difference.

1.2.2. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process. A Proposal receiving a “High Risk ", or “Pink” rating at any Factor level is Unawardable and may be removed from further consideration for award. Following clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), if held, a proposal that is rated “Pink” in a technical factor is unawardable unless discussions are held.

1.3. The relative importance of the evaluation factors that will affect the contract award are as follows: Past performance is approximately equal to technical. Past performance combined with technical are significantly more important than price.

1.4. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical and/or cost performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and/or result in elimination from the competition.

1.5. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP may be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough evaluation.

1.6. The Contracting Officer will conduct proposal compliance review prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal, all required Volumes, may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a) and (b)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

1.7.1. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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.

1.7.2. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. Clarifications and communications in accordance with FAR 15.306 (a) and (b) do not constitute discussions, and do not allow for proposal revisions. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be in the best interests of the Government.

1.8. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, plans, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

1.9. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

2.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1.1. Evaluation of proposals will be accomplished as follows:

2.1.2. Compliance review: Contracting will review for solicitation compliance and obvious problems in pricing.

2.1.3. Past Performance/Technical: All SSEB Members

2.1.4. Cost/Price: All SSEB Members after Completion of Past Performance/Technical evaluations have been competed.

2.1.5. The Contracting SSEB Member and or Contracting Officer/SSA will conduct Subcontracting Plan Evaluation and provide a copy of the determination and rationale to the USPFO.

2.1.6. Each evaluator shall review, evaluate and document each sub-factor for each past performance proposal received. A rating will not be given at the sub factor level or by an individual rater. Ratings are given by team consensus. See below.

2.1.7. Individual proposal evaluations shall be accomplished for each offeror using the “Offeror Evaluation Worksheet” format. The SSEB consensus evaluation and ratings shall be accomplished for each offeror using the “Consensus Offeror Evaluation Worksheet” format.

2.1.8. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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.

2.1.9. The Contracting Officer will conduct proposal compliance review prior to providing the proposals to the board. Failure to provide a complete proposal, as detailed in the solicitation, may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

2.1.10. The Contracting Officer will sequentially number all compliant proposals and all worksheets will be identified with the offeror’s number only.

2.1.11. After individual evaluators have documented the findings of their evaluation an overall Risk rating will be established for the factor by the team. All SSEB MEMBERS shall establish overall team ratings, for the past performance factor by evaluator consensus and not by vote. When divergent evaluations exist, and none of the SSEB members have misinterpreted or misunderstood any aspects of the proposals, the SSEB will provide the SSA with written majority and minority opinions. .

2.1.12. A proposal receiving a "High Risk" is Unawardable and may be removed from further consideration for award

2.1.13. The relative importance of the evaluation factors that will affect the contract award are as follows: Past performance is approximately equal to technical. Past performance combined with technical are significantly more important than price. The evaluation process and the criteria for evaluating the factors follow.

3. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

3.1. Past Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past Performance includes current/ongoing (present) performance complete to 75 percent. The evaluation will also consider the past performance of the proposed subcontractors. If multiple subcontractors for the same discipline are presented then the lowest rated subcontractor will be considered in the evaluation.

3.2. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, to include but not limited to Government databases; (3) rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contractor and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

3.3. The evaluation may…