AMENDMENT TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2.pdf

AMENDMENT TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

This amendment to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items identifies the informal source selection criteria for this solicitation.

Maintenance and Repair Services, Apache Support Facilities, Kuwait Air Force, Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait

United States Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division, Middle East District

W912ER20R0004

1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, Executive Orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. Additionally, the Contracting Officer shall make an affirmative determination of a proposal’s responsiveness. To be determined responsive, a proposal shall meet the requirements set forth in the solicitation. A proposal that is determined to be non-responsive will not be evaluated or considered for a contract award.

2. BEST VALUE TRADE OFF (BVTO) SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Government will evaluate all proposals that are complete and responsive to the solicitation.

Evaluations for technical acceptability will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation.

The Government cannot make the contract award to an Offeror that is determined to have a technical proposal that is unacceptable. An unacceptable rating will make the Offeror ineligible for the contract award unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with Offerors and all reasons for an unacceptable rating are remedied in a revised proposal. It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions although the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

Therefore, an Offeror that desires consideration for the contract award is advised to comply with all mandatory requirements of this solicitation for proposal submission of price and non-price proposals.

The Offeror that submits the proposal with the best combination of technical and price aspects shall be selected for the contract award. The Government will not select the successful Offeror based on either the lowest price or the highest technical rating alone. To be selected an Offeror must provide the appropriate balance of each aspect by having a highly qualified technical proposal but at a reasonable price.

3. BASIS OF AWARD

Basis for Award: Subject to the provisions contained herein, award of a contact will be made to one Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value (using the Cost/Technical Trade-off process) to the Government.

The proposals will be evaluated on four (4) evaluation factors:

Factor 1 - Experience, Factor 2 - Past Performance, Factor 3 - Technical/Management Approach, Factor 4 - Price.

When combined the non-price technical factors are approximately equal to price. The greater the equality of the technical proposals, the more important price will become in selecting the Best Value to the Government. Unreasonable proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range based upon assessment that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unreasonable proposal. The Government intends to make one award for completion of the project identified in the solicitation. The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government. Competing proposals will be evaluated against the requirements of the solicitation to assess strengths, weaknesses, and associated risks and deficiencies. The tradeoff process of evaluation between non-price and price aspects of the Offerors’ proposals will be used to determine the offer that represents the best value to the Government and may result in award of a contract.

4. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience.

Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The proposal shall meet the following basic requirements.

a. The Proposal shall be typed, submitted in English, and in 12 point font, double or single spaced.

b. Proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted electronically in two volumes.

Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

d. Volume I: Offerors shall submit technical (non-price) proposals and verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete, including names of the points-of-contact, email addresses, and telephone numbers.

e. Volume II: The Price proposal shall be completed in full. Volume II shall include verification of the Offeror’s intent to be bound by the solicitation, all amendments, which it must verify it has received, the priced labor category chart, and the priced bid schedule.

f. Each Offeror shall submit an electronic copy of each Volume, including the Price Proposal.

g. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

h. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals. All questions and concerns shall be addressed, in writing, to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist prior to the closing date of the solicitation, providing adequate time for the Contracting Officer to answer the concerns. Conditions on proposals and exceptions to requirements or standards set forth in the solicitation will, at the Government’s discretion, form the basis for a proposal to be rejected, with or without evaluation. Further, all such conditions and exceptions shall be deemed rejected such that the Government may make award notwithstanding conditions on proposals and/or exceptions to requirements or standards set forth in the solicitation and any such conditions and/or exceptions shall not form part of the awarded contract and shall not affect the awardee’s obligation to perform all requirements of the solicitation and other contract documents.

i. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly, may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist if instructions are not understood.

j. The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. All Offerors submitting proposals for this solicitation must be actively registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of proposal submittal. Proposals of Offerors that are not actively registered in SAM will be considered unacceptable. Offerors should complete the registration process in SAM at least two weeks prior to the proposal due date to ensure active registration. Offerors may register in SAM on the internet at: https://www.sam.gov.

k. Solicitation Inquiries: All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via bidder Inquiry. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. Bidder Inquiry is a web-based program that allows bidders to post questions regarding the solicitation and view all questions by other bidders and responses by USACE. Bidder Inquiry can be accessed through ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

l. Inquiries must be submitted at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal due date.

Offerors will not be able to submit inquiries after this date as the ProjNet system must be shut down.

m. To submit and review bid inquiries, Offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: SBMJQ4-T5MMVV

From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

Identify the Agency as USACE.

Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

Click Add User. Once this is completed, you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

n. Submit questions, or review questions and answers. A bidder who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that their question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer is then available for all other bidders to review.

o. For specific step-by-step for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES, see the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

p. For questions about the ProjNet-®, please contact the Call Center help desk toll free at 1- 800-428-HELP, which operates from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern US time zone). ProjNet-® questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@rcesupport.com.

2. Joint Ventures

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding Joint Venture agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capabilities of any entities associated with a Joint Venture offeror that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copies of their legal Joint Venture agreements signed by authorized officers from each of the firms comprising any Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified.

A Joint Venture agreement must be translated into English if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the technical (i.e., experience, past performance, etc.) information of each of the entities in the Joint Venture can be submitted for the Joint Venture itself. However, a Joint Venture Offeror must show that each entity included in the Joint Venture would participate in performing the work required by this solicitation in order for technical information for the entity to be eligible for consideration.

3. Subcontractors

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a subcontractor or supplier (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor or part of a Joint Venture prime contractor), a letter of commitment signed by the Subcontractor and the Prime Contractor must be submitted with the proposal and the subcontractor must be expected to perform 30% of the work under this contract. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to the prime contractor. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Make sure to include as any necessary letter of commitment as part of Volume I.

The same requirements apply to consideration of committed subcontractors’ projects under Past Performance.

4. Proposal Package

Volume I – Technical Proposal

Factor 1 – Experience

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach JV Agreement (If Applicable) Subcontractor Letter of Commitment (If Applicable)

Volume II – Price and Contract Documentation

Factor 4 – Price Acknowledgement of solicitation, all amendments, priced labor category charts for the base year and all option years, and priced bid schedule for Task Order 1 Points-of-Contact with the authority to legally bind the Contractor DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number

4.1 Proposal Format for Volume I

When the word “Offeror” is encountered, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4.1.1 FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Each Offeror’s experience will be examined for demonstrated breadth and depth of management and performance of operations, maintenance, and repair services that are similar to those required by the solicitation. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project would include operations, maintenance, and repair services for multiple facilities to include infrastructure, electrical and mechanical systems, and grounds maintenance in the same geographic region as the solicitations requirements, with a contract value between $1 million and $20 million. For the purposes of this evaluation the “same geographic region” shall include Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

Under this Factor, the Offeror must provide a narrative, not to exceed 15 pages, in 12 point font, single-sided, describing recent and relevant experience on three (3) projects. Each project submitted for this factor must identify:

a. project title,

b. description of the project,

c. major features,

d. overall contract value (U.S. dollars),

e. the Offeror’s role in the project (Prime/Sub),

f. overall contract value the entity was responsible for (U.S. dollars or percent),

g. location of the project (country, nearest city),

h. contract duration (calendar days) and the year in which the project was completed or its current completion date.

Offerors shall submit experience capturing all projects being submitted for evaluation for no more than three (3) projects that have been completed by the Offeror within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation or are currently being performed and well underway (at least 75% completed), which shall be the requirements for a finding of recency. If more than three projects are submitted for this factor, only the first three will be evaluated.

Evaluation Approach for Factor 1:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s experience and will rate each Offeror on the basis of the depth of its experience in managing and executing operations, maintenance and repair services projects that are recent and relevant to the requirements of the solicitation as defined above.

Greater weight will be given to those Offerors whose proposals identify projects for which the Offeror was/is the Prime Contractor, the contract value was/is between $1 million and $8 million, or the place of performance was/is in the State of Kuwait. These greater weight considerations will be applied separately, and they are listed in increasing order of importance.

Factor 1 Experience Adjectival Ratings and Definitions

A single technical rating will be assigned to Factor 1 – Experience. In rating the Offeror, the Government will weigh the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risk of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Experience Factor 1 requirements.

4.1.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation includes an assessment of an Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and results in an assignment of a single past performance

COLOR ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Blue Outstanding

Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements with the experience provided. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements with the experience provided. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements with the experience provided. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the five years immediately preceding the issuance of this RFP, or (2) is currently being performed and is at least 75% complete as of this RFP issuance date.

A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project with a “similar scope” to the requirements of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as operations, maintenance, and repair services for multiple facilities to include infrastructure, electrical and mechanical systems, and grounds maintenance in the same geographic region, as defined under Experience, Factor 1, with a contract value between $1 million and $20 million.

The Offeror shall submit past performance for each completed project submitted under Factor 1 Experience. To be evaluated the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project submitted under the Experience Factor. Only past performance information associated with the projects submitted under the Experience Factor, for which PPQs have been submitted will be evaluated, except that the Government reserves the right to consider past performance data pertinent to an Offeror that it has in its past performance databases in addition to the projects that the Offeror has submitted. The Government reserves the right to authenticate and verify any past performance information submitted by the Offeror.

Past performance refers to the quality of project experience from the owner’s perspective. It relates to how well an Offeror accomplished a project, not what the Offeror has done, which is considered separately under Factor 1, Experience. The Offeror shall provide an English speaking customer reference name(s), with the reference’s company affiliation and current contact information, for each of the projects submitted under the Experience Factor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client points of contact. If the Offeror, one of the entities in a Joint Venture Offeror, or a subcontractor whose project is submitted has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit, or team members submitting the proposal or anticipated to perform the requirements of this solicitation. The project owner points of contact/clients shall have firsthand knowledge and information of the Offeror’s past performance in connection with the projects submitted. The points of contact/clients provided cannot be affiliated with the Offeror in any manner or capacity, must be independent, and must be willing to answer questions. The Government may contact and interview points of contact/clients and reserves the right to interview other individuals with knowledge of the performance of the listed projects. ANY FALSIFIED PPQ WILL BE GROUNDS FOR

DISQUALIFICATION OF THE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL AND TERMINATION FOR

DEFAULT OF ANY CONTRACT AWARDED BASED ON A PROPOSAL THAT

INCLUDED A FALSIFIED PPQ.

The PPQ form included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project submitted in response to the Experience Factor. The Offeror should include any performance ratings already assigned by the owner on the form if the Offeror was rated prior to the submission of the PPQ form to the client in connection with this solicitation.

A PPQ shall be submitted for each project. If an Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ for a project, then it must, at a minimum, complete the client contact information on the first page of the PPQ to allow the Government to attempt to contact the client if it chooses to do so. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of work, timeliness, whether the subject project was completed on budget, safety, management, warranty performance, and client satisfaction. The Government will not release any interview information to the Offeror at any time in order for the Government to solicit and receive candid, unbiased interview comments. Note that the Government will never be under an obligation to solicit Past Performance information on its own, including by contacting clients, and may evaluate proposals under this factor without any information other than what has been provided by the Offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating current and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using applicable CAGE/DUNS numbers of the team members, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Offeror’s Dun & Bradstreet Report, and any other sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact Government field representatives and/or other sources that it deems appropriate to gather additional information about the Past Performance of an Offeror on any recent or ongoing project or projects.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture or partnership, some past performance information should be presented for each entity in the joint venture or partnership if it is not provided for the Offeror itself. Although the Government prefers all members of a joint venture or partnership to have satisfied or excelled in all areas pertaining to past performance, the Government will consider the complimentary aspects of the separate participants in a Joint Venture or partnership, by evaluating the joint venture or partnership as a whole.

A Joint Venture or partnership with previous successful past performance as a Joint Venture or partnership as proposed will be given greater weight in the evaluation process than a newly formed Joint Venture or partnership that has no performance history of its own.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client/reference requests, questionnaires can be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Mr. Eric L. Caruso, via email at Eric.L.Caruso@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date.

Evaluation Approach for Factor 2:

The Past Performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements based on its own past performance.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other information determined appropriate by the Government.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevance, and quality, which, considered together, result in a single performance confidence assessment of an Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Each Offeror's past performance is evaluated to determine how relevant the offeror's demonstrated record of recent past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. The Government's assessment of relevancy of past performance is a significant contributor to the final past performance rating; however, it is not a formal rating in and of itself. The following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of an offeror's past performance.

For purposes of relevance determination, the magnitude of this effort will be considered to be in the range of $1 million to $8 million.

Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of an Offeror's past performance. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this solicitation does not establish, create, or change the existing record of an Offeror's performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well an Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The Government will take into account whatever it can

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 involves none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

discern about the reliability of the sources of Past Performance information. For example, PPQs completed by foreign governments that are known to regard their interests as hostile to those of the United States, or by representatives of entities owned or controlled by such governments, may be given typical, little, or no weight as the Government determines is appropriate on case-by-case basis.

The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the work required in the solicitation. The Government will consider recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government places a higher value on past performance for which documented successful outcomes are both available and supported by outside source confirmation (for example, telephone interviews with references and clients, CPARS or other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the Offeror).

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the confidence assessment and overall rating assigned for Factor 2 Past Performance, than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral."

The Government will review past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror will be assigned one of the ratings in the table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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.

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

4.1.3 FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Each Offeror shall provide a Management Plan with a detailed narrative that identifies the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements for this solicitation and its approach for successfully managing and completing the work. The narrative for this factor shall not exceed 15 pages single-sided in length and must be in 12 point font. The narrative shall also specifically address the elements listed below:

Element 1 – Phase-In: Phase-In refers to the contractor’s efforts to prepare to complete the work under Task Order 1 and other types of work included in the base contract Performance Work Statement for the Anticipated Facilities. Each Offeror shall present and describe its phase-in organization, schedule of phase-in activities, measures of phase-in performance, approach to inspecting and providing an inventory of spare parts and accepting responsibility for equipment, and approach to identifying and mitigating phase-in risk.

Element 2 - Kuwait Business License: Each Offeror shall include proof of current Kuwait business licensure in the Offeror’s name, or alternatively, the Offeror’s supported plan to obtain a Kuwait business license. The Offeror shall provide documentary evidence and any necessary narrative to prove that it is currently registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform work in Kuwait, or a detailed and supported plan to become properly licensed and legally permitted to perform work in Kuwait. The submission under this Element should be demonstrably related to the types of business activities required by this solicitation.

Element 3 – Technical Approach: Each Offeror's narrative shall include its overall approach and processes to perform the requirements of the solicitation. In particular, the Offeror should set forth methods that will produce efficiencies such as reductions in staffing below the levels that might otherwise be required and should identify the significant risks associated with the requirements and present its approaches to mitigation of these risks.

Element 4 - Organization: Each Offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage performance of the requirements of this solicitation. The Offeror shall set forth its proposed project organization with regard to personnel, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to team members. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the management, supervision, logistical, administrative, and labor aspects of this solicitation. The Offeror shall include an organizational chart depicting the relationship between the Offeror's home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, and safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the Offeror shall clearly state the roles of any specific entities within a Joint Venture Offeror and major subcontractors in its discussion.

1. Additional Certified/Licensed Positions. The positions identified below require specialized certifications/licenses in order to perform the identified functions.

Offeror or committed subcontractor employees shall have the required current and valid professional certifications to accomplish the requirements of this solicitation in compliance with all applicable laws. In addition, the submitted personnel must have certain minimum levels of experience. Offeror shall provide proof of the below certifications/licenses and evidence of the experience required for each position:

a. Electrical Technician(s). The Electrical technicians shall possess technician licenses issued by the Government of Kuwait in electrical repair and have least three (3) years of experience, gained within the last 10 years, in electrical repair.

b. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration (HVAC/R) Mechanic(s). The HVAC/R Mechanics shall possess technician licenses issued by the Government of Kuwait in mechanical repair with at least three

(3) years of experience, gained within the last 10 years, in repair and maintenance of HVAC systems.

c. Liquid Fuel Maintenance (LFM) and Petroleum Oil and Lubricants (POL) System Maintenance Technician(s). The LFM and POL technicians shall possess technician licenses issued by the Government of Kuwait in Class IV Hazardous Materials and have gained at least three years of experience within the last 10 years in LFM and POL system maintenance.

d. Fire Protection System Technician(s). The Offeror shall provide personnel that have the technical expertise, training, and knowledge to competently provide the required services for the specific systems and equipment. Fire Protection System technicians shall be factory trained and have a thorough understanding of fire protection systems, including operation, testing, and inspection requirements outlined by NFPA Codes and standard, as well as principles and technology of fire detection devices, signal appliances, control equipment, and ancillary devices controlled by the fire protection systems.

Technicians shall possess a minimum of three years’ experience gained within the last 10 years working with commercial fire alarms and suppression systems and shall possess technician licenses in repair of fire detection and suppression systems issued by the Government of Kuwait.

The Offeror’s narrative shall demonstrate a clear understanding of its approach and show how it meets the requirements of this solicitation with specific reference to the four elements above.

The Technical/Management Approach submission will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses using information provided by the Offeror.

Evaluation Approach for Factor 3:

An offeror's management and technical approach will be evaluated in its entirety to determine the offeror's understanding of the requirements and its capability to execute the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate the extent of the offeror's consideration of the inherent challenges that are specific to this project scope and location. In evaluating an offeror's management and technical approach, the Government will evaluate each segment as follows:

Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate proposals to determine the completeness and feasibility of an offeror's management approach and its understanding of the overall scope of work, the phased repairs, and anticipated challenges. Additionally, the Government will evaluate an offeror's approach regarding the following aspects:

Element 1 – Phase-In: The Government will evaluate the phase-in plan for likelihood of effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility, completeness, and level of detail to determine whether it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to assume full responsibility for contract performance, including the adequacy and organization of the proposed phase-in workforce and its ability to provide uninterrupted, continuous, high quality service.

Element 2 - Kuwait Business License: Each Offeror must demonstrate its current, valid licensure to do business in Kuwait or its ability to obtain such licensure. If the Offeror relies upon current licensure, it should include copies, including English translations, of all licenses upon which it relies.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors that are able to prove to the satisfaction of the Government the sufficiency of current, valid licenses to allow them to perform the work under this solicitation.

Element 3 – Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates understanding of the nature of the work and offers realistic efficiencies.

Further, the Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated for the extent to which they provide comprehensive and effective identification of and mitigation measures for the most significant risks involved in performing the requirements of the solicitation.

Element 4 - Organization: The Government will evaluate an Offeror's plan to manage this requirement. The Government will assess an Offeror's proposed project organization for well-defined roles, the provided certifications/licenses, responsibilities, and authority delegated to its team. The Government will evaluate an Offeror's organizational chart and narrative to determine the effectiveness of the relationships and work flow between the Offeror's home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any entities in a JV Offeror if applicable.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors who can effectively demonstrate organizational structures, processes, and procedures that minimize the risk to the Government.

Factor 3 Technical/Management Approach Ratings and Definitions

A single technical rating will be assigned to Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach. In rating the Offeror, the Government will weigh the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risk of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Factor 3 requirements.

COLOR ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

4.1.4 FACTOR 4 - PRICE

Each Offeror shall provide a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) proposal. Pricing shall include every aspect of the work priced by line item, all insurance that the contractor chooses to procure for its own benefit or as required by local law, and Defense Base Act insurance. This means that no insurance will be separately priced; the costs associated with insurance must distributed over the prices for the priced line items and labor category rates. An evaluation shall be performed on the proposed pricing for balance, completeness, and reasonableness. To be clear the prices to be submitted for this competition include five tables of labor category rates, one for the base year and one for each option year, which will be binding on the awardee in pricing all Task Orders, including Task Order 1 advertised herewith. Complete pricing for Task Order 1 must also be submitted for evaluation as part of each Offeror’s proposal. The Government will not be obligated to, but expects to, award Task Order 1 to the base contract awardee concurrently with the award of the base contract.

1. Completing the Price Proposal

Each Offeror shall submit a completed Price Proposal as part of its response to Factor 4 – Price in Volume II.

a. The price proposals shall be balanced. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

b. The price proposal shall be complete. The proposal shall have pricing for all line items contained within the solicitation. This means rates for each line item of Task Order 1, as well as rates for each labor category for each year of the base contract.

c. The price proposal is reasonable. The Offeror’s price proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business with consideration given to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals). Offerors will not be permitted to change proposed prices unless the Government conducts discussions.

4.1.5 Proposal Format for Volume II

a. For Volume II the Offeror shall provide the Price Proposal and Contract Administrative Requirements at the same time as the submission of the Technical Proposal (Volume I).

b. Each Offeror shall submit a completed Price Proposal, containing the Offeror’s proposed pricing. All aspects must be priced.

c. Each Offeror shall price the labor category chart for the specified disciplines for each year, as well as the bid schedule for Task Order 1 with an original signature by an officer authorized to bind the company. Note that, as stated in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, the labor category rates proposed must include all overheads associated with work under this contract. Overheads will not be applied to any costs other than labor and may not be applied, other than as already included in the proposed labor category rates, in the pricing of any Task Order. Note also that the labor category rates should not include profit, which will be negotiated for each Task Order. Of course, the pricing for Task Order 1 submitted in response to this solicitation will be firm-fixed, inclusive of any profit.

d. Acknowledgement of the solicitation and any amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions identified in the solicitation.

e. The name, address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of the Point(s) of Contact (POC) with the authority to legally bind the Offeror.

f. Name, address, phone number, e-mail address, DUNS, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

Evaluation Requirements:

The Government will evaluate all proposals for the purpose of determining the completeness and reasonableness of the prices offered. Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Price will also be traded-off against technical factor ratings to arrive at the source selection decision.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

a. The prices are balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (or labor category rates) is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of the price analysis techniques.

One example of apparent imbalance will not necessarily lead to a determination that the Offeror’s pricing is unbalanced; the price evaluation will include a determination as to whether each Offeror’s pricing is balanced or unbalanced overall, taking into account what is represented in the Offeror’s technical proposal, what is known about the Offeror and the solicitation requirements, the relative significance of line items in determining the overall price, and the consequences of the potential misunderstanding underlying each apparent example of unbalanced pricing.

d. The pricing is complete. Completeness consists of having priced all aspects of the work to be performed as defined by the Government. This means having priced each and every line item, having acknowledged all solicitation amendments with potential bearing on price, and not having excepted or excluded any requirement of the solicitation from the price proposal.

d. The proposal is reasonable. Reasonableness evaluation is based on determination as to whether an Offeror’s proposed prices compare favorably against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and the proposed prices submitted by other Offerors in light of all information available to the price evaluators and the Source Selection Authority.

If an Offeror’s prices are reasonable, balanced, and complete, its Total Evaluated Prices for the base contract and Task Order 1, combined with its ratings for technical factors, will be traded off against the prices and technical ratings of other Offerors to arrive at a source selection decision.

For this purpose, as noted above, price, overall, will be approximately equal in importance to technical ratings. Total Evaluated price for the base contract will be the sum of all labor category rates proposed for all five years (i.e.: the simple sum of the labor category rates for the base year+the simple sum of the labor category rates for Option Year 1+ . . . +the simple sum of the labor category rates for Option Year 4). Total Evaluated Price for Task Order 1 will be the sum of the prices for all Line Items that comprise Task Order 1. For purposes of the price considerations in the tradeoff decision, Total Evaluated Price for the base contract will be somewhat more important that Total Evaluated Price for Task Order 1, subject to the caveat that all of an Offeror’s pricing must be balanced, reasonable, and complete in order for the Offeror to be eligible for award without discussions.

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: