US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Attn: CENAN-CT, 26 Federal Plaza, Rm 1843, New York, N.Y. 10278-0090

Y -- ARVIN CADET PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, USMA, WEST POINT, N.Y., PHASE I SOL DACA51-99-B-0005 DUE 120898 POC Michael McHugh, 212-264-5995 Project: Arvin Cadet Physical Development Center, Phase 1. Location: U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY. The New York District is seeking to secure a fixed firm price construction contract through the submission of proposals to provide for the demolition and installation of utilities for the FY 99 MCA Arvin Cadet Physical Development Center, Phase 1 at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY. The Government reserves the right to limit selection to the four highest rated proposals and also reserves the right to award without discussions. This is the first Phase of a three-phase multi-million dollar project that will provide the United States Military Academy with a state of the art physical development center for the Corps of Cadets. One award will be made. The SIC code is 1795. This procurement is UNRESTRICTED. Proposals from all qualified small business concerns are invited. The small business size standard is no more than $7 million in gross revenues per year as averaged over the last three years. If a large business intends to submit a proposal, it must comply with FAR 52.219-9 regarding the requirement for a subcontracting plan. Estimated construction value is between $8,000,000 and $12,000,000. Completion date is approximately 365 calendar days from issuance of Notice to Proceed. Plans and Specifications will be available on or about 6 November 1998. Proposals are due on or about 5:00pm, 8 December 1998. The NON-REFUNDABLE cost of the Plans and Specifications package is $100.00 if the Government issues the plans portion on cd-rom or $300.00 if the Government issues the plans section in hardcopy. The specifications will be in paper format. Because the Government has not made a final determination as to the format, interested parties should send a check or money order in the amount of $100.00. If the Government only issues by paper, contractors will be given the option of sending in the additional $200.00 or getting a refund of the initial $100.00. Refunds can take up to thirty days. Make check or money order payable to "USA, COE, NED, FAO". Parties requesting the Plans and Specifications package must do so in writing, stating the solicitation number or project name, complete company name and street address (we will NOT deliver to P.O. boxes), telephone and facsimile numbers (including area codes). Plans and Specifications may be examined at the following locations: This office at 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1831, New York, N.Y.; Brown's Letters, 1167 McBride Ave., West Paterson, N.J. 07424; F.W Dodge, 148 Princeton Hightstown Road, Hightstown, N.J. 08520; West Point, U.S. Army Engineer District (New York), Bldg 667A, USMA, West Point, New York 10996. SITE VISITS: Two formal site visits are scheduled for 18 November 1998 and 6 January 1999. Informal site visits are available starting 19 November 1998. ALL site visits must first be coordinated through Mr. Nick Multari, the Area Office, at 914-938-4701/3805. Description of Work: The scope of work for Phase 1 includes the demolition of approximately 250,000 GSF of the existing Arvin Cadet Physical Development Center while maintaining operation of other portions of the facility. The scope of work also involves the installation of new utility services, and re-routing of existing utility services. The Government will use a best value procurement method for this source selection. The successful offeror must have submitted a clear and concisely written proposal that gives the Government the greatest confidence in the offeror's ability to meet the Government's requirements in an affordable manner. Offerors must demonstrate a thorough understanding of project requirements and a commitment to excellence in all aspects of project execution. Source selection may result in award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and where it is determined by the Source Selection Authority that the technical superiority, overall business management approach, and/or demonstrated past performance record of the higher priced offeror outweighs the benefits of any price difference. The Source Selection Authority, using sound business judgment, will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted in accordance with the evaluation factors established within the solicitation. The solicitation will specify a specific format for submittal of the Proposal. This format is as outlined as follows. All responding offerors will be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors (the evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance): 1. Offeror's Past Experience and Performance. 2. Management Approach. 3. Technical Approach. 4. Subcontracting Plan. Volume I -- TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (PAGE LIMIT FOR VOLUME I NOT TO EXCEED 100 PAGES. PERSONNEL RESUMES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAGE COUNT.) Factor I -- Offeror Past Experience and Performance: This volume will contain the offeror's past experience and performance information. It is the Government's intent to evaluate the quality, recency, and relevance of each offeror's performance on four recent (within the past five years) and relevant projects. In addition to the information listed below, offerors are encouraged to provide any supplementary information to assist the Government in developing confidence in their ability to successfully complete this project on the basis of their prior performance. For the purposes on Factor I, each offeror (includes all subcontractors whose work is expected to exceed $2 million) must provide a listing of all construction projects over $10,000,000 undertaken by the offeror awarded within the last five years (if more than 15, list only the 15 most recent), including projects in progress. Additionally, each offeror must identify for purposes of evaluation four projects on the list that the offeror believes are the most recent and relevant to this contract. Offerors without four projects meeting the $10,000,000 threshold should submit the requested information for the four most recent and relevant regardless of project value. Relevant projects are those that are similar in nature and comparable in magnitude. Phased building demolition projects in constrained site conditions, installation of new utility systems while maintaining existing utilities and facilities operational. For the four most recent, relevant projects offerors will be asked to provide, among other things, contract number if a Government contract; contract type; statement of project's relevance; percentage of work subcontracted; and copies of all interim and final performance ratings received. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the experience of each member will be considered in evaluating the Offeror's past experience. The persons listed as points of contact or other representatives of their organizations, as well as other sources, may be contacted by the Government during the evaluation process. The Government may contact offeror's customers to ask whether or not they believe: (a) that the Offeror was capable, efficient and effective, especially in managing subcontractors; (b) that the Offeror's performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (c) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (d) that the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction and provided a quality product; (e0that the Offeror completed the project(s) in a timely manner or is making timely progress on on-going projects(s); (f) that the Offeror negotiated fairly and in good faith. The Government may make its own determination about which projects on which to base the evaluation of quality of past performance. Additionally, although it is the Government's intent to evaluate each offeror's performance on four to five projects, the Government retains the right to evaluate a fewer or greater number at its discretion. Factor II -- Management Approach: This factor will address the offeror's management approach to the project. Offerors should prepare this portion of the submission with the objective of giving the Government confidence in their understanding of the project and their ability to successfully manage, plan and integrate activities for the complex and challenging aspects of this contract. Sub-Factor 1 -- Management Approach: Management Approach: Submit a management plan for this project to explain the offeror's proposed overall management approach. The management plan should include identification of key on-site personnel and their qualifications, identification of major subcontractors (those subcontractors whose work is expected to be over $2 million, and any other information to assist the Government in developing confidence in the offeror's ability to effectively manage the project within quality, cost and schedule objectives. Sub-Factor 2 -- Key Personnel: As a minimum, identified key personnel shall include the Project Manager (overall manager of the project), Project Superintendent (overall field manager responsible for construction), Quality Control Manager (manager of field quality control personnel),Assistant Superintendent/Subcontractor Manager (manager and coordinator of subcontractors), Safety Manager (principal in charge of enforcing safety codes), and Schedule Manager (or name of consulting firm in lieu of in-house manager). Submit Resumes for each member of the management team, which are being used on this project. The Offeror shall also include a flowchart that shows the relationships between the key personnel and define the specific authorities and responsibilities of the key personnel. Substitutions of team members are subject to approval by the Contracting Officer. If the Offeror does not currently employ such personnel, the personnel must provide letters of intent. Factor III -- Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit an integrated master plan and master schedule to describe the proposed technical approach for executing the work. Offerors should prepare this portion of the submission with the objective of giving the Government confidence that they thoroughly understand the requirements and complexities of this project, and that they have developed a well thought out plan which integrates all related activities including coordination with other contractors and government activities. Sub-Factor 1 -- Master Plan: The integrated master plan is a step by step description of the offeror's proposed approach for executing the work. The plan should address project phasing, coordination with other government contractors, methods of controlling costs and maintaining schedule, and any other pertinent information to show that the offeror thoroughly understands the project requirements and has a well thought out plan for accomplishing the work within project quality, cost and schedule objectives. The plan should consider and identify essential government milestone activities that affect contractor progress. Sub-Factor 2 -- Master Schedule: The master schedule is a summary level schedule in bar chart or other format integrated with the master plan and showing major work element sequencing/phasing in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the proposed approach is well planned and is reasonable and achievable. Consideration is given to the construction period offered, methods of demolition to be used, type of equipment to be used, scheduling system to be used, identification of critical elements in construction (which, if delayed, can delay the entire project), method of development of payment estimates from the progress schedule and method of updating the progress schedule. The Offeror must display a thorough understanding of the events associated with coordinating submittals and time allowed for Government reviews. Specific factors include: Sub-Item (1) Phasing Plan including specific methods to maintain continuous services to the remainder of the facility and contingency plans. Sub-Item (2) Proposed Completion Time. Sub-Item (3) Milestone dates including proposed interruptions to the rest of the facility for tie-ins, transfers to temporary services and testing of new equipment. Sub-Item (4) Method of demolition and disposal. Sub-Item (5) Method of providing early notification of building service or operation interruption. Sub-Item (6) Identification of potential restraints and time impacts. Volume II -- PRICE/COST PROPOSAL AND PREAWARD SURVEY INFORMATION Pricing Schedule: The total combined fixed price for Phase 1 of the Arvin Cadet Physical Development Center will be provided in this volume. The pricing schedule identified as Section 00010 will be completed and included in this volume. This volume will not be scored, but will be evaluated in relation to the other factors. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the technical proposals, in addition to the price proposals, shall be compared. Decisions shall be based on the Total Offered Price, provided it has been determined that the price is reasonable. The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price. However, the closer the technical scores, the more important price becomes. Pre-award Survey Information -- Financial History. Volume III -- SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUB- CONTRACTING PLAN (NO PAGE LIMITS). The Corps of Engineers (COE) is responsible for effectively implementing the small business programs within its activities, including achieving program goals, and ensuring that contracting and technical personnel maintain knowledge of Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-owned small business requirements, and taking reasonable actions to increase participation in its small business activities. In line with the emphasis on the program, the COE, New York District is particularly desirous of increasing subcontracting opportunities for Small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns and Women-Owned business concerns. If the Offeror is a large business it is required to participate in the program by soliciting subcontractor bids from such firms. In addition to locating small business sources, the Offeror is encouraged to take action to locate competent Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned small business concerns for its subcontracting opportunities in preparing its offer. The Offeror is further urged to request such resources in the vicinity in which the work is to be performed. A contract will not be awarded unless and until the Contracting Officer has determined (with advice from SBA) that the Offeror's subcontracting plan provides maximum practical opportunities for Small disadvantaged business concerns and Women-owned business concerns to participate in contract performance. In determining the acceptability of the proposed plan, the Contracting Officer will evaluate all factors inclusive of an offeror's past performance with respect to the Offeror's having awarded subcontracts for the same or similar products or services to Small disadvantaged business concerns and Women-owned business concerns. In order to make this evaluation, the offeror is required to submit its past SF 294 (Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts) and SF 295 (Summary Subcontract Reports) forms along with its offer. Prior to award, the successful Offeror is a large business, it will be required to discuss its subcontracting plan with the Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist (SADBUS) and SBA. FAR 19.706, Responsibilities of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, at subsection (b) states that "If the contractor does not comply in good faith with the subcontracting plan, the administrative contracting officer shall, upon contract completion, make appropriate recommendations that contracting officers may use for future contracts.' Therefore, a determination by the contracting officer, during or after completion of the project, that the contractor did not implement its plan in good faith may result in adverse recommendations with regard to the contractors future contract opportunities. In addition, FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages- Subcontracting Plan, failure to fully implement the plan during the life of the project may result in assessment of liquidated damages. Posted 10/22/98 (W-SN264666). (0295)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0119 19981026\Y-0002.SOL)