Solicitation No. W912HV27RA001

For Information and Planning Purposes Only

PLANNED SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR THE

Air Defense Artillery Vehicle Maintenance Shop

SOLICITATION No:

W912HV27RA001

P2 No. 511758

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Japan District

Okinawa Area Office

Solicitation Date: TBD

Controlled by: US Army Controlled by: USACE-POJ CUI Category(ies): Procurement Distribution/Dissemination Control: Fed Only POC: Christine Allen, 315-645-9068

DRAFT

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

*The draft information herein is provided for information and planning purposes only.

Contractors should follow all submission and evaluation requirements as stated in the official solicitation when that is issued.

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted electronically through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website (https://piee.eb.mil). Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) must be annotated in red and dated.

Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

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

c. The following are excluded from the page count but may be submitted: charts, images, diagrams, table of contents, tables, cover page, schedule, acronym or definitions lists.

d. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Construction Project Management 1 10

II Past Performance 1 4 for narrative, no limit for PPQ/CPARS III Price 1 No page limit

V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

1 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created for each volume. Document files, except the schedule and PPQ/CPARS, shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – approximately 1 inch or 2.5 cm Gutter – 0 inch From Edge – Header, Footer approximately 0.5 inch or 1.25 cm Page Size, Width – 8.5” or A4 Page Size, Height – 11” or A4

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Format. Files shall be in read-only, PDF format. Each volume must be a separate file with the volume number, solicitation number (W912HV27RA001), date, and the Offeror’s name (abbreviated name is acceptable) in the file name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate Volume’s file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Volumes I and II shall not contain any price information. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Construction Project Management. The purpose of this factor is to assess the Offeror’s capabilities in managing complex projects with significant earthen works requirements. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Table of Contents.

(2) Factor 1: The Construction Project Management factor is comprised of the following subsections:

(a) Earthwork & Geotechnical Approach

(b) Construction Sequencing

(ii) VOLUME II – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts completed in the last ten (10) years. The Contractor shall submit Past Performance Information Sheet, Attachment A, and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), Attachment C, to provide past performance information on two (2) projects. The Government will not evaluate more than two (2) projects. If more than two (2) projects are submitted, the Government will only evaluate the first two (2) projects in the order presented in the proposal. This volume shall not exceed four (4) pages for the narrative (2 pages per project), excluding the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or PPQ submitted for each project or images.

This volume shall include:

(2) Project Narrative. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each project, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence.

(3) PPQ: A completed PPQ (Attachment C) should be submitted with your proposal for each project. Offerors should obtain completed PPQs from clients. In cases where the validity of the completed PPQ is questioned, the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer may contact the reference for verification or additional information. The Offeror may obtain an updated/new PPQ from its client(s) for this Solicitation or include a previously completed PPQ the Offeror has on file.

(a) If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should submit first page of the PPQ (Attachment C) with the contract and client information for the respective project(s) and a copy of a final CPARS assessment(s) (or interim if final is not available).

(b) If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the

Government point of contacts to the attention of Christine Allen via e-mail at heather.c.allen@usace.army.mil and Erica Stiner via e-mail at erica.j.stiner@usace.army.mil.

PPQs are due back to the Government by the proposal due date and time listed in block 13 of SF 1442. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The Government will not contact clients to request questionnaires.

(c) The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify an Offeror’s past performance information using CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary affiliate firm) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, from other sources, including, but not limited to CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and/or SAM.gov. Government evaluators may contact Offeror’s points of contact/references for the projects submitted to verify an Offeror’s past performance on these projects. The Government may consider relevant past performance data obtained from any source in determining the performance confidence rating.

(iii) VOLUME III – Price. The volume shall be organized into the following sections.

There is no page limit. Information included in Volume III will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation Board and will not be provided to the Technical Evaluation Board.

(2) Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

Offerors must include pricing for each CLIN to be considered for award.

(2) Assumptions. In accordance with RFO 15.402(a)(2), other than certified cost or pricing data is required to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Include narrative information regarding the underlying assumptions utilized in developing the proposed price. A detailed cost breakdown is not required.

(3) Certified Cost or Pricing Data. In accordance with the Revolutionary Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) 15.402 and 15.403-3, certified cost or pricing data are not required since adequate competition is anticipated. However, if only one offer is received, the Contracting Officer may incorporate RFO 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data.

(v) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

This volume shall consist of the following documents:

(1) Cover letter (not to exceed two (2) pages). The cover letter should include:

a. Solicitation number

b. Name, title, address, email, and telephone number of the Offeror.

c. Names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP (primary and alternate).

d. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

e. A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP.

f. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and CAGE code.

(2) Table of Contents

(3) Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442), Solicitation, Offer and Award, signed by a person authorized by the Offeror

(4) Standard Form 30 (SF 30), for each Amendment issued, signed by a person authorized by the Offeror

(5) Certifications and Representations – Representations and certifications completed in SAM.gov should not be included in Volume IV unless the Offeror wishes to provide different information than what is in SAM.gov or applies only to this solicitation.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 16)

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three

(3) evaluation factors: Factor 1) Construction Project Management, Factor 2) Past Performance, and Factor 3) Price. The Construction Project Management approach will be the most important non-price factor, followed closely by Past Performance, with Price approximately equal to the combined non-price factors. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor and “Neutral

Confidence” for the Past Performance factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

When combined, Technical and Past Performance will be designated as approximately equal to Price.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor if the Construction Project Management (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2) evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the project specifications, drawings, and responses to requests for information. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating for Factors 1 and 2 and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 1 Construction Project Management: Each Offeror’s approach for managing the “Earthwork & Geotechnical” and “Construction Sequencing” aspects of the project will be evaluated for the feasibility of the approach to successfully complete the project within the schedule, performance quality, and budget of the contract.

Factor 2 Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed for relevancy in relation to the VMS project and quality, resulting in a determination of the Government’s level of confidence that the Offeror could successfully perform the requirements of the Solicitation.

Factor 3 Price: The resulting award will be a firm fixed price construction contract. Cost realism will not be utilized in the evaluation. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST) comprised of a Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) and Price Evaluation Board (PEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

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

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule and budget.

2. Construction Project Management: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed means and methods for the basic contract period and all optional CLINs. Marginal or lower ratings could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in elimination from the competitive range. The Construction Project Management factor is divided into the following equally weighted elements. Each subsection will be rated individually by the Technical Evaluation Board Members but result in one consensus rating for the overall Technical Factor 1 rating.

Evaluation Element Key Assessment Points Expected Offeror Evidence

a. Earthwork & Geotechnical

Approach

• Capability to handle large-scale volume (cut/fill balancing).

• Strategy for construction of retaining walls up to 7m high

• Capability to construct pavement for heavy duty military vehicles.

• Narrative on groundwater management/dewatering.

• Construction means and methods with similar cubic yardage and soil complexities.

• Construction means and methods with similar retaining structures.

• Construction means and methods for pavements supporting heavy vehicle loads.

b. Construction Sequencing • Capability to manage congested utilities and significant relocation work.

• Demonstrated ability to systematically sequence project tasks and schedule workflows in an optimal logical order, minimizing concurrent task conflicts and eliminating redundant efforts or costly rework.

• Coordination strategy for communication with 1-1 ADA, adjacent facilities, utility shops, and other Installation support groups to prioritize mission requirements, maintain access to other facilities in the area, and minimize down time by optimizing outage work to be completed simultaneously (e.g., tie-ins, splices, etc.).

Show ability to meet outage request timeline.

The methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Definitions:

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the Offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the project.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (completed within the past ten

(10) years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating, and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to this project.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the Prime Offeror completed during the past ten (10) years from the issue date of this RFP which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

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

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Any project completed over ten (10) years prior to the date proposals are due will be determined to be not relevant for the assessment of Recency. “Completed” means the construction was finished but does not require the turnover to the customer to be done.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of project scope, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Projects will be evaluated on their Relevancy based on the following elements. Each element is approximately equal in terms of importance.

(a) Offeror was the Prime Contractor on the project.

Relevance Level

Definition & Technical Requirements

Very Relevant

The Prime Contractor for the project is the same entity as the Offeror.

Relevant The Offeror is a Prime Contractor who was a part of the Joint Venture on the project. The Offeror is a Joint Venture and one of the members was a Prime Contractor or part of a Joint Venture on the project.

Somewhat

The Offeror was a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the project’s Prime Contractor and Offeror demonstrates that the subsidiary or affiliate’s resources will be utilized in performing the contract.

Not

There is no direct corporate affiliation between the Offeror and the Prime Contractor on the project. A project submitted on the basis the Offeror was a subcontractor to the Prime Contractor with no corporate affiliation on the project will be considered “Not Relevant.”

(b) Location.

Level

Definition & Technical Requirements

Very Relevant

The project was physically located in Japan on a military installation controlled by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Relevant The project was physically located in Japan, but not on a military installation controlled by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Somewhat

The project was physically located outside of Japan.

Not

No project location is given.

(c) Experience.

Level

Definition & Technical Requirements

Very Relevant

The project successfully demonstrates both of the following: (1) Civil works involving large-scale cut/fill balancing and/or retaining walls 7m minimum in height; and (2) Sophisticated construction management involving multi-stage construction sequencing and new construction of a multi-building complex of comparable scope.

Relevant The project demonstrates experience in either of the following: (1) Civil works involving large-scale cut/fill balancing and/or retaining walls less than 7m in height; or (2) Sophisticated construction management involving multi-stage construction sequencing and new construction of a multi-building complex of a scope that is either (a) lesser (such as fewer buildings or smaller size) or

(b) different (such as different types of facilities), than the solicitation project.

Somewhat Relevant

The project demonstrates experience in either of the following: (1) Civil works similar in type as the solicited project scope but was less complex; or (2) construction management of a project with a facility similar to the vehicle maintenance shop but with a scope that did not require new construction of a multi-building compound.

Not Relevant

The project fails to demonstrate experience in mass earthwork, high-magnitude retaining walls, or multi-stage construction sequencing.

(d) Magnitude

Level

Definition & Technical Requirements

Very Relevant

The project value by the time of completion was more than Japanese yen (JPY) 12,500,000,000, or more than U.S. dollars (USD) $100,000,000 if the contract value is denominated in either or any currency other than JPY after that currency has been converted into USD based on the exchange rate at the date of contract award.

Relevant The project value by the time of completion was more than JPY 2,500,000,000 but no more than JPY 12,500,000,000; or more than USD $20,000,000 but no more than USD $100,000,000 if the contract value is denominated in either USD or any currency other than JPY after that currency has been converted into USD based on the exchange rate at the date of contract award.

Somewhat Relevant

The project value by the time of completion was more than JPY 1,250,000,000 but no more than JPY 2,500,000,000, or more than USD $10,000,000 but no more than USD $20,000,000 if the contract value is denominated in either USD or any currency other than JPY after that currency has been converted into USD based on the exchange rate at the date of contract award.

Not Relevant

The project value by the time of complete was less than or equal to JPY 1,250,000,000, or USD $10,000,000 if the contract value is denominated in either USD or any currency other than JPY after that currency has been converted into USD based on the exchange rate at the date of contract award.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the

Offeror’s past performance. Quality is the composite of how well the Offeror performed and the degree to which the customer’s needs were satisfied. The Government will focus on areas pertinent to the solicitation project: quality control/assurance, schedule/timeliness of performance, customer satisfaction, management/personnel/labor, cost control/financial management, safety and security, ability to respond to emergencies and/or surge situations (if applicable), and compliance with contractual terms and conditions. Documented results from SPRS, CPARS, and other sources may be used for this assessment in addition to the PPQ submitted by the Offeror. The Evaluation Team 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 Rating (Table 3); quality is not rated separately. Offerors with a proven record of delivering high quality projects of a similar scope to the solicitation project on time within budget will be viewed the most favorably.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Price proposals. The

Government will fully evaluate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs inclusive of options will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in RFO 15.404-1 to determine if they are fair and reasonable. The narrative information submitted regarding assumptions made by the Offeror in developing the price proposal will be utilized by the Government Price Evaluation Board to determine if the price is fair and reasonable but will not receive an adjectival rating or be shared with the Technical Evaluation Board.

b. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(i) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the

Offeror’s proposed firm fixed prices for all CLIN.

(ii) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in RFO 15.404-6(a)(1). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see

RFO 15.404-6).

(iii) Errors: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

E. NEGOTIATIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.110(a)(1) (DFARS CD 2026-O0048), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting negotiations with Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range.

2. NEGOTIATION SCHEDULING. If negotiations are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three

(3) business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.