Phase 1 Solicitation - W912ER21R0008.pdf

This is a design-build project requiring the Contractor to design and construct a modular billeting facility at Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB), Saudi Arabia.

The Magnitude of Construction is betw een $25,000,000 to $100,000,000.

Notes:

(a) The Government reserves the right to incorporate the aw ardee proposal into the contract and distribute the proposal as deemed necessary. Any deviations from the proposal must be approved by the Contracting Officer;

(b) The contractor is required to provide all documentation requested in this solicitation (tender) to include Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance after contract aw ard and prior to Notice to Proceed.;

(c) Performance and Payment Bonds (10%) are required for this acquisition;

(d) Funds are authorized but not presently available for this acquisition. No contract aw ard w ill be made until funds are made available.

ANITA M LUDOVICI

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

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

NEGOTIATED

03-Dec-2020

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______1 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________730 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________04 Jan 2021 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

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

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

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

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT, CETAM-CT

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

W912ER

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

04:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912ER21R0008 245

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912ER21R0008

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Mobilization / Demobilization

FFP

Mobilization and Demobilization in accordance with contract documents FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job Site Design & Survey

FFP

Site Design & Survey in accordance with the contract documents

0003 1 Job Construct Modular Housing

FFP

Construct Modular Housing in accordance with the contract documents

0004 1 Job Construct Modular Housing Facilities

FFP

Construct Modular Housing Supporting Facilities in accordance with the contract documents

0005 1 Job OPTION Contractor Provided FFE

FFP

Contractor Provided Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FFE) in accordance with the contract documents

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

SECTION 00 21 00 INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION

PHASE ONE: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A GENERAL INFORMATION

B QUALIFICATION (TECHNICAL) PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTENT , AND FORMAT

C PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

D SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

E DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

F BASIS OF PHASE ONE EVALUATION

G PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

PHASE TWO: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A GENERAL INFORMATION

B PHASE TWO PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTENT , AND FORMAT

C PHASE TWO PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

D SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

E DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

F BASIS OF PHASE TWO AWARD

G PHASE TWO EVALUATION FACTORS

SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

A CORPORATE CERTIFICATE / AUTHORITY TO BIND PARTNERSHIP

B EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW SHEET

C DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FORM

D RELEVANCY MATRIX

E PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ-0)

F SUPPLEMENTAL PRICE BREAKDOWN

G RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION QUESTIONNAIRE

H SAMPLE SURETY BANK LETTER OF GUARANTEE:

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

This solicitation is for a firm-fixed price contract for construction services in Saudi Arabia using a two-phase design-build procurement process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Transatlantic Middle East District (TAM), has a requirement for the design and construction of a modular billeting facility. The project will be constructed in accordance with current building codes, safety, and security standards.

Qualification (technical) proposals are requested under Phase One in which the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase Two from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract.

Magnitude of Construction: The estimated cost of this construction project is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000.

The Primary NAICS code is 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction with a small business size of $39.5 million.

System for Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including Joint Venture entities) shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and determined to be responsible prior to Award. For more information, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. Please ensure that NAICS code 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction is listed in your SAM registration.

B. QUALIFICATION (TECHNICAL) PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTENT, AND FORMAT

The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any responses to this solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to offerors are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation. Any and all amendments to the solicitation will be issued electronically at the Contract Opportunities website (https://beta.sam.gov/). It is an offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this solicitation and acknowledge any and all amendments in its proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal or add conditions or qualifications to their offers. Should an offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that offeror may be determined to be ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved prior to submission of an offer.

References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of an offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include information in their proposals they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall clearly mark their proposals in accordance with the instructions at FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data.

Use of the words “will”, “shall”, or “must” indicates a mandatory requirement for which failure to comply, at the time and date for submission of proposals, shall result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration to Phase Two selection, unless the Government elects to initiate discussions with some or all offerors, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offeror(s) involved can be made. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements that are annotated with the words “should” or “may” can result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings, and may have a significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award. Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT – PHASE ONE

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. A Proposal without the minimum content may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of an offeror.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the qualification (technical) proposal shall be submitted within the qualification (technical) proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within the qualification (technical) proposal. Information referenced elsewhere could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

Pricing information is not required and shall not be submitted in Phase One.

a. COVER PAGE: A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each volume and, at a minimum, shall consist of the following information:

i. Solicitation number/Phase One

ii. Offeror’s name, physical mailing addresses, telephone number, and email address of the official having the authority to bind the offeror contractually.

iii. Offeror’s DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax ID (TIN)

b. TABLE OF CONTENTS: A table of contents shall be placed in each volume and shall identify major areas by title, page numbers, and volume location.

c. VOLUME I QUALIFICATION (TECHNICAL) PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s technical proposal is described under Basis of Phase One Evaluation. Do not submit pricing information in the technical proposal.

i. Factor 1: Technical Approach

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

d. VOLUME II REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATION: Do not submit pricing information.

i. Signed Solicitation, Offer, and Award (SF 1442) with blocks 14-20c completed, including acknowledgment of all amendments.

ii. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Attachment A).

__If the offeror is a corporation, completed Corporate Certificate; OR

__If the offeror is a partnership, completed Authority to Bind Partnership and a copy of the Partnership Agreement; OR

__If the offeror is a joint venture, completed Corporate Certificate for each member of the joint venture and a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

iii. Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00 45 00).

Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct, and complete, including names of points of contact, email addresses, and telephone numbers.

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor.

Elaborately prepared proposals are not required, and any material in excess of what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered.

Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions are not understood.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT

a. Proposals must be typed and submitted in English. Proposals submitted in a language other than English are unacceptable. Letters of Commitment, partnership agreements or joint venture agreements, if not written in English, must be accompanied by an English translated copy with a signed statement, in English, by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each JV partner that the English translation is true and correct.

b. An offeror’s Phase One proposal shall be submitted electronically, and shall be comprised of two files in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), or comparable format: the first file will include the offeror’s Volume I – Qualification (Technical) Proposal, the second file will include the offeror’s Volume II – Representation and Certification. All documents must be searchable.

c. An offeror’s qualification (technical) proposal and representation and certification information must be submitted as two separate volumes (PDF files) as identified in Proposal Content. Page limits, if stipulated must be adhered to. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified herein. Proposals shall be sized to print on 8 1/2” x 11” paper (11” X 17” for drawings). Margins shall be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”), font face shall be Times New Roman or Arial, and font size shall be no smaller than 10 point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page or a table of contents, are not included in the page limitation. Corporate certificates, Joint venture agreements, Partnership agreements and Letters of commitment are also not included in page limitations.

d. Offerors shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of their proposals: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Do not disclose any source selection information to any unauthorized person.”

e. All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. In order to reduce proposal size, the Offeror must confine the proposal to required information sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. Each volume of the proposal must contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion. Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

C. PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Phase One Proposals must be submitted electronically. The electronic submission must include Volume I and Volume II as two separate files in PDF (or comparable) format, submitted to Ms. Anita M. Ludovici at Anita.M.Ludovici@usace.army.mil and Mr. Kenneth G. Baker at Kenneth.G.Baker@usace.army.mil through the DoD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) site located at https://safe.apps.mil (Non-CAC Users). In order to submit a proposal, offerors must email Ms. Ludovici AND Mr. Baker at least four (4) calendar days prior to the proposal due date to request a DoD SAFE code. This code is required to upload and transmit proposals through the DoD SAFE website. Proposals are due no later than January 4th 2021 by 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST). This date is the proposal due date, after which a proposal revision(s) will not be accepted.

Facsimile Proposals are not permitted. It is an offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the Government system by the date and time of the proposal deadline, e.g., undeliverable messages due to an offeror’s proposal size or IT issues are not the responsibility of the Government.

Late Proposals: Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the Government after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and –

(1) if it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, and it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 4:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or

(2) there is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or

(3) it is the only proposal received. However, a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

D. SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

1. 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/.

a. Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

b. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question(s) via email, followed by an answer to their question(s) after it has been processed by our technical team. Offerors may view all bidder inquiries through ProjNet.

c. Inquiries must be submitted NO LATER THAN 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.

2. To submit and review bid inquiries, prospective 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: PUDQGT-T7CQ74

3. Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b. Identify the Agency as USACE.

c. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

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

e. 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.

f. 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.

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

4. 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.

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

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

7. Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit. No pre-proposal conference or site visit will be conducted during Phase One. A pre-proposal conference and site visit may be conducted during Phase Two.

E. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a post-award debriefing after award by submitting a written request to the contracting officer within three (3) days after receipt of the notice excluding the offeror from the competition and award.

Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

F. BASIS OF PHASE ONE EVALUATION

1. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. In determining the most highly qualified offerors, the Government will evaluate qualification (technical) proposals to determine offerors who are responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1;

who are responsive to the solicitation requirements; and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technical standards for non-price factors. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) offerors to Phase Two from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract.

2. The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate qualification (technical) proposals except past performance factor by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in each offeror’s proposal and assigning a combined technical/risk rating.

Definitions

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's 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 is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

Deficiency is 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.

A risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. There may be contained within the evaluation factors certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. There are also contained within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that a proposal is unacceptable. A final determination that a proposal is unacceptable means that advancement to Phase Two to the offeror involved cannot be made.

4. The Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions if the Government determines that to do so would be in its best interests. Therefore, an offeror’s proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the contracting officer to be necessary or requested by the source selection authority (SSA).

G. PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

All of the submission items to be evaluated shall pertain to the offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a joint venture. At a minimum twenty percent (20%) of work associated with this project is required to be performed by the contract awardee.

Subcontractors: The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. An offeror that intends to have major subcontractor participation (twenty percent (20%) or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts or those performing 20% or more of the total dollar value of the project) shall submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the subcontractor(s). Offerors who propose to use a designer of record (DOR) shall submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the DOR. An offeror’s technical proposal will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process unless a letter of commitment is provided establishing the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor(s) will actually be available for this project.

If an offeror’s proposal includes the use of any major subcontractors, the offeror shall not change subcontractors without the contracting officer’s approval. If an offeror proposes to change major subcontractors after award, the offeror shall not change major subcontractors without the contracting officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal or better in all respects to the originally proposed major subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

Joint Ventures: A joint venture is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies to undertake the performance activities of a contract together.

An offeror proposing as a joint venture shall provide evidence that the joint venture as a legal entity has been duly formed. Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each JV partner, with the chief executive of each entity identified. A prospective offeror that submits a proposal as a JV may not change their joint venture firms, if selected for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Relative importance of Phase One evaluation factors: For Phase One evaluation purposes, the Technical Approach factor is significantly more important than Past Performance factor.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 1, Technical Approach, consist of two components: management approach and prior experience. The two components are equal in importance to each other. Factor 1 will be evaluated in its entirety resulting in an assignment of a single technical approach rating.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Component 1: Management Approach

An offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work for the project and describes the offeror’s approach to completing the work. An offeror’s narrative should identify all major scope components of the project, including critical components. The narrative should include a discussion of an offeror’s planned technical approach that addresses shipping and logistics (air, land, and sea), phasing, local labor and subcontractor markets, local laws, anticipated challenges to the project, and the unique requirements associated with designing and constructing a modular billeting facility.

The narrative shall also address the following:

a. Saudi Arabia Business License: An offeror should provide proof of current licensure in Saudi Arabia, or describe in detail the process to gain licensure in Saudi Arabia along with a detailed description of your plan to obtain necessary licensure to ensure construction start in accordance with your submitted schedule. The license must be 1) in the prime offeror’s name as listed in the System for Award Management (SAM); 2) in the name of a Joint Venture (JV) or any JV partner, if the offeror is a JV; or 3) in the name of a main subcontractor if the main subcontractor is separately identified under the “Organization” element listed below and its role in performance of the contract is clearly detailed.

If the offeror submits a license (or its plan to obtain a license) in the name of an entity that is not the offeror (e.g., a single JV partner, or the main subcontractor), the offeror should clearly describe its plan to complete the work relying upon this license. The offeror’s plan should address any anticipated impediments it may foresee in completing the work under a license not in the name of the offeror.

b. Base Access: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with Prince Sultan Air Base base access requirements and its plan to obtain access from the 378th Expeditionary Contracting Squadron (CONS) and Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Public Relations (PR). The narrative should also describe the offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for its personnel, subcontractors, and its construction materials and equipment.

c. Organization: An offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage the project. The offeror should discuss its proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to its team. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction and those who will perform design. The offeror should identify how it plans to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and explain the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. The offeror should include an organizational chart along with an accompanying narrative, which shows the relationship and how work flows through the organization between the offeror’s home office, field office, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the offeror should clearly state the roles of any joint venture partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

The management approach portion of an offeror’s proposal will be limited to fifteen pages in length, not including organizational chart(s) or letters of commitment. Any pages beyond fifteen will not be evaluated and will be ignored.

Component 2: Prior Experience

An offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed five pages, that outlines how its experience on prior projects will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Although an offeror may highlight any experience it has gained, an offeror’s narrative should pertain to the offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with design and construction challenges within the last ten (10) years, and how these experiences will positively impact its performance handling a design-build project in Saudi Arabia. As part of its narrative, an offeror should address process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address design and construction challenges.

At a minimum, an offeror should address its experience in the following:

a. Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

b. Procurement of long lead items.

c. Obtaining access to work locations, such as base access.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may discuss experience on projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner. In its evaluation of this component, the Government is focused on the offeror’s prior experience. If an offeror submits prior experience of its proposed DOR and/or major subcontractor(s), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the DOR and subcontractor(s) must be included in the offeror’s proposal. If this requisite letter of commitment is not submitted, the prior experience of the DOR and major subcontractor(s) will not be considered.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

An offeror’s 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 technical approach, the Government will evaluate each component as follows:

Management 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 and anticipated challenges.

The Government will evaluate an offeror’s management approach based on the following aspects:

a. Saudi Arabia Business License: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to obtain a business license to work in the Saudi Arabia.

b. Base Access: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements at Prince Sultan Air Base. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility of the plan.

c. Organization: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to manage the project. The Government will assess an offeror’s proposed project organization for well-defined roles, responsibilities, and authority delegated to its team. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and how well the offeror defines the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. 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, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any joint venture partners if applicable.

Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with design and construction challenges to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Greater Weight Considerations:

a. Greater weight will be given to offerors who possess a current Saudi Arabia business license.

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained access to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia military bases for previous or current projects.

c. Greater weight will be given to offerors who demonstrate prior experience in the design and construction of steel frame Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) or similar construction.

The combined technical /risk rating which includes consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical /risk ratings and the risk descriptions as follows:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptable

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

Table 2. Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance. Special contractoremphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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

Proposal Submission Requirements:

An offeror shall submit recent and relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment B), Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C) and Relevancy Matrix (Attachment D). The offeror should include a project description on the Design/Construction Experience Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and magnitude. The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Design/Construction Experience Form.

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date.

A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as defined below.

“Similar scope” is defined as the design and/or construction of a modular billeting facility consisting of steel frame Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) or similar construction.

“Cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $1 million or more.

An offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance for the applicable project submitted and may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such elements as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, and warranty work. References should be the contracting agency or entity that administers the contract such as the construction agent, owner, or Government representative. The offeror’s references should be independent and willing and available to answer questions. The offeror should also ensure that each reference is notified that he/she may be contacted for the purposes of the evaluation. The Government may contact and interview references provided, and additionally reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the reference provided, if the reference is not available.

When submitting past performance information for consideration, the offeror is limited to (a) at least one but no more than three projects that have been performed by the offeror, and (b) at least one but no more than three design projects that have been performed by the offeror’s proposed design team/designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the offeror. The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the past performance information for the JV-offeror, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the JV partner on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner will be performing on the solicitation project. The Government will not consider for evaluation under this factor the past performance of any subcontractors other than the offeror’s proposed design team /designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) (Attachment E) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ (including blocks 5 and 6), which will provide the contract and client information necessary to conduct an assessment.

An offeror should follow up with clients to ensure that PPQ submissions are in accordance with the solicitation requirements and the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Anita Ludovici at Anita.M.Ludovici@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQs previously filled out by clients for each project submitted and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQs by reference into their proposals. The Government may utilize previous PPQs in its past performance evaluation of proposals.

In addition to the PPQs, the offeror is permitted to submit DD Form 2626 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for projects submitted. Past performance information such as awards, certificates, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition shall not be submitted as this information will not be evaluated. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted.

FALISIFIED PPQs MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR TO THE

APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

The Government reserves the right to contact and interview references and clients submitted by an offeror, or by any other means available in order to verify past performance information. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the offeror by reviewing relevant Government databases, other DoD or Government appraisal systems, or other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in an offeror’s proposal; inquiries of owner representative(s); Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); Government field representatives; and any other known sources not provided by the offeror, including the personal knowledge of the Government personnel involved in the evaluation.

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.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

The past performance evaluation performed in support of this solicitation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history 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.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation (recency, relevancy, and quality) which results in a single performance confidence assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Recency: The first is to evaluate the recency of an offeror’s past performance. A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP issued, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the date the RFP is issued.

b. Relevance: The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror is to the solicitation’s effort. A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as the design and/or construction of a modular billeting facility consisting of steel frame Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) or similar construction.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $1 million or more.

Within the relevancy aspect, an offeror’s past performance is evaluated to determine how relevant the offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. The Government’s assessment under the Relevancy Assessment 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.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

c. Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of an offeror’s past performance. 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 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 the recency relevancy and quality of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance.

Past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the confidence…