Solicitation W912ER21R0001 - 18DEC2020.pdf

Request for Proposal

W912ER21R0001

P964 Shore to Ship Utilities

Naval Support Activity (NSA), Bahrain

Volume 1 of 3 Solicitation Instructions

Contract Clauses

US Army Corps of Engineers Middle East District

PROJECT TITLE: P-964 Shore to Ship Utilities, NSA Waterfront, Bahrain

This is a design-bid-build project requiring the Contractor to upgrade and increase the capacity of the w ater treatment system at NSA Waterfront, Bahrain.

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 (30%) 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.

JEFFREY A WALKER XXX-XXX-XXXX

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

18-Dec-2020

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

P-964 Shore to Ship Utilities

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

X

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 ________1026 calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________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 ______________18 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

10:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

474976

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912ER21R0001 99

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

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Job Mob & Demob

FFP

Mobilization and Demobilization in accordance with contract documents FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y249

NET AMT

0002 Job Project Design & Site Survey

FFP

Perform Project Design & Site Survey in accordance with contract documents

0003 Job Construct Hotel Service Station

FFP

Construct Hotel Service Station in accordance with contract documents

0004 Job Construct Electrical Distribution System

FFP

Construct Electrical Distribution System with Switchgear and Frequency Converters in accordance with contract documents

0005 Job Construct Single Story Addition to CUB

FFP

Construction a Single Story Addition to the existing Consolidated Utility Building (CUB) in accordance with contract documents

0006 Job Construct Single Story High-Bay Storage

FFP

Construct a Single Story High-Bay Storage Facility in accordance with contract documents

0007 Job Construct Paving & Site Improvements

FFP

Construct Paving, Site Improvements, Screen Walls, and Equipment Sunshades in accordance with contract documents

0008 Job Install Electrical Utilities

FFP

Install Electrical Utilities in accordance with contract documents

0009 Job Install Mechanical Utilities

FFP

Install Mechanical Utilities in accordance with contract documents

0010 Job Perform Selective Demolition Within CUB

FFP

Perform Selective Demolition Within the Existing Consolidated Utility Building (CUB) in accordance with contract documents

0011 Job OPTION OPTION #1 - NSA 1 & 2 Connection

FFP

Option #1 - Install the Required Hardware and Make the Base Electrical Interconnection between NSA-1 and NSA-2 in accordance with contract documents

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

SECTION 00 21 00 INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION

A PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

B BASIS FOR AWARD

C FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED & EVALUATION APPROACH

D PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

E DISCUSSIONS

F ATTACHMENTS

PROVISIONS BY FULL TEXT

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

52.236-27, ALT I SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION), ALTERNATE I

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE

INFORMATION CONTROLS

252.215-7008 ONLY ONE OFFEROR

252.215-7013 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY NONTRADITIONAL DEFENSE

CONTRACTORS

252.236-7010 OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION – PREFERENCE FOR UNITED

STATES FIRMS

A. PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

A.1 General. Offerors shall submit electronic proposals as indicated in paragraph D.1.4 of this section. Proposals shall be comprised of three files in Adobe portable document format (pdf). The first file will include the offeror’s Volume I – Non-Price (Technical) Proposal; the second file will include the offeror’s Volume 2 – Price Proposal; the third file will include the offeror’s response to the ‘Request for Information (RFI) for Purposes of Conducting a Responsibility Determination’ at Attachment 6. The offeror shall not include pricing information in its non-price proposal.

A.2 The following federal acquisition regulation is applicable to this acquisition and may be viewed at:

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations.

FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition

A.3 Descriptions regarding submission and evaluation criteria for each of the evaluation factors are detailed in paragraph C and associated subparagraphs of this section.

A.4 The required contents of the Volume I and Volume II proposals are listed below. Offerors are reminded to adhere to any page limitations stated in a specific factor.

VOLUME I – NON-PRICE (TECHNICAL) PROPOSAL:

1. Cover Page (see content instructions in paragraph A.5 below).

2. Table of Contents – Non-Price (Technical) Proposal (see content instructions in paragraph A.6 below).

3. FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH - documentation as described in the Factor 1 Proposal Submission Requirements

4. FACTOR 2 – PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE - documentation as described in the Factor 1 Proposal Submission Requirements

5. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 1)

b. Project Summary Form (Attachment 2)

c. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3)

VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 PRICE PROPOSAL:

6. Cover Letter (see content instructions in paragraph A.5 below).

7. Table of Contents – Price Proposal (see content instructions in paragraph A.6 below).

8. Signed Solicitation Offer and Award (SF1442), completion of blocks 14 through 20C, to include acknowledgments of all amendments, if any.

9. Completed Proposal Schedule (Attachment 4)

10. Price Breakdown Sheet (Attachment 5)

11. Completed Representations and Certifications (Section 00 45 00).

a. If an offeror is a Corporation, completed Corporate Certificate.

b. If an offeror is a partnership, completed Authority to Bind Partnership, and provide a copy of the Partnership Agreement.

c. If an offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), then completed Corporate Certificate (if JV partner is a

Corporation), or Partnership Agreement (if JV partner is a partnership) for each member of the JV, and provide a copy of the JV agreement.

A.5 Cover Page. A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each Volume and shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

a. Solicitation Number

b. Business Name and Address of the offeror

c. Offeror’s CAGE Code, DUNS Number, and Tax I.D. Number (TIN)

d. Name, telephone number, and valid company email address of the official having the authority to bind the offeror contractually

e. Acknowledgment of any amendments issued (amendment number and date acknowledged by offeror)

A.6 Table of Contents. Each volume should contain its own Table of Contents, placed behind the volume’s cover page. The Table of Contents should identify major areas of the volume by title and page number.

A.7 A proposal submitted without the required 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.

A.8. All information that the offeror intends to be evaluated as part of the non-price (technical) proposal shall be submitted with the non-price proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within the technical proposal. Referencing information not found within the qualification proposal could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

A.9 Responsibility determination requirements. In accordance with FAR Part 9 and DFARS Part 209, the Government may only make award to an offeror found to be responsible. To assist the Government in this responsibility determination, offerors are asked to complete the following forms found at Attachment 6, Request for Information (RFI) for Purposes of Conducting a Responsibility Determination:

a. Financial Standing Questionnaire

b. Calculation of Self-Performed Work

One copy of the completed forms should be included with each offeror’s proposal. The forms should not be included in either the Non-Price (Technical) or Price Proposal volumes but should be a separate pdf file.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

B.1 Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government and has been determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1. The Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) process (see FAR 15.101-1) will be used to determine which proposal provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government in response to the requirements. A tradeoff analysis may be appropriate when it is in the Government's best interest to consider award to other than the lowest price offeror, or other than the highest technically rated offeror. The tradeoff process involves an evaluation of both price and non-price (technical) factors, and awards the contract to the offeror proposing the combination of factors which offer the best value to the Government. The evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

B.2 In determining the best value to the Government, each non-price factor is of equal weight to each other and when combined, are approximately equal to the price factor.

B.3 In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED & EVALUATION APPROACH

C.1 References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all 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.

C.2 Use of the words “will”, “shall”, or “must” indicates a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement at the time and date for submission of proposals may result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, unless the Government determines to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offeror(s) involved can be made. Failure to comply with requirements annotated with the words “should” or “may” could 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.

C.3 In accordance with FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered when evaluating the proposals.

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.

Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

C.4 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate technical proposals by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies (as defined below), contained in each non-price factor.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably enhances the merit of that offeror’s proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance by that offeror.

Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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).

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk. 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, or the likelihood or unsuccessful contract performance.

C.4.1 FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Management and Technical Approach includes three elements but will be evaluated as one factor and given one rating. The three elements are 1) Experience in Construction of Similar Work, 2) Licensing, and 3) Organization.

a. Factor 1 Proposal Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that identifies the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope for the project and its approach to completing the work. The narrative should identify all the major scope components of the project. Additionally, offerors should provide a discussion of its planned technical approach to completing the project that demonstrates not only an understanding of the technical requirements, base access, and other anticipated challenges, but that also provides benefit to the Government.

For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the offeror’s experience in dealing with construction challenges, not on those project metrics required to conduct the Past Performance relevancy evaluation.

The narrative must also specifically address the following elements:

1) Experience in Construction of Similar Work: The offeror should describe in as specific terms as possible its experience in shore to ship utilities or similar work, challenges faced, and how it overcame those challenges. Offerors must identify the project name, federal contract number, contract value, construction completion date, and place of performance for any project it references in response to this element.

2) Licensing: The offeror should provide proof of current licensure in Bahrain, or describe in detail the process to gain licensure in Bahrain along with a detailed description of your plan to obtain necessary licensure to ensure construction starts 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.

3) Organization: The offeror should describe the management process that the offeror would use to manage this project. The offeror should: provide a narrative on the project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to the staff in each position; discuss how work flows through the organization; identify all of the major components of the team for the project, and explain how their work will be integrated into the overall scope; and provide an organizational chart showing the relationship between the offeror, sub- contractors, QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE.

Responses to Factor 1 of the offeror’s proposal will be limited to forty pages in length, not including the project organization and staffing chart(s); any pages beyond forty will not be reviewed for evaluation purposes. “Page” is defined for the purpose of this solicitation in Section II, paragraph D.1.5.

b. Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria:

The Management Approach submission will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses using information provided by the offeror under this factor. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s completeness of response and feasibility of the offeror’s approach. Specifically, the proposal submission will be evaluated on how well the offeror addresses the following items:

1) Experience in Construction of Similar Work. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated experience with projects involving shore to ship utilities construction or similar work. The Government’s evaluation will focus on whether the offeror has performed the same or similar work and has identified challenges inherent to such work, but not necessarily on whether the work was recently performed or the location where the work was performed. Greater weight may be given to demonstrated shore to ship utilities construction experience with the most weight given to shore to ship utilities construction experience in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

2) Licensing: The Government will consider the extent to which the offeror has proven (1) it holds a license in good standing which will permit the offeror to perform the work required within the period of performance; or (2) it understands the business license process and has clearly explained how it plans to obtain the business license necessary to perform the work required within the period of performance.

Greater weight will be given to offerors who submit a Bahraini license in good standing which will permit the offeror to perform the work required within the period of performance.

3) Organization: The Government will evaluate the extent to which an offeror’s plan for organization includes well defined organization and lines of authority, responsibility, and communication. The Government will consider whether the offeror clearly describes its organizational structure for this particular project, including lines of authority and the relationship between its home office site office (office which is directly responsible for execution of this project) and USACE TAM. The organization chart should include titles and explanations of the major responsibilities and authorities for key personnel in the home office, support office and site offices. The proposal should clearly explain the proposed project staffing and how the work effort can be effectively managed. The chart should clearly identify where positions/ personnel are located and whether filled by the Prime Contractor or their subcontractor’s personnel. The roles of any Joint Venture partners and/or subcontractors must be clearly stated in this section. If a Joint Venture, the offeror should address the respective roles of the Joint Venture partners. The awardee shall not change subcontractors without approval of the Contracting Officer. Greater weight may be given to offerors whose proposals effectively demonstrate organizational structure, processes, and procedures that minimize risk to the Government.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach factor. In rating the offeror, the Government will weigh the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The chart below explains the ratings which will be applied to the Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach portion of the offeror’s proposal, based on how well the offeror’s proposal meets this factor’s requirements.

(See ratings table on the following page.)

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 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.

C.4.2 FACTOR 2 – PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

a. Factor 2 Proposal Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide a single preliminary master schedule with approximately 100 activities or milestones -derived from the full project schedule - and an accompanying schedule narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The schedule must include the major activity milestones identified below with a total contract duration of 1026 calendar days beginning at contract award. The schedule shall start no earlier than the contract award date. The schedule should be in the form of a time scaled network diagram Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule that is in accordance with specification 01 32 17.12 10 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES. This schedule should cover aspects of the project, including a timeline from date of contract award, issuance of the NTP, and through construction completion. The schedule must include the following:

Award

NTP

Obtain Bahraini Business License (if not currently licensed) Submit Cleared Construction Personnel for Approval Procurement of Long Lead Items Mobilization Testing & Commissioning of Major Building Systems Demobilization Project Completion

The offeror should demonstrate a further understanding of the project requirements by including additional activities and milestones not listed above.

The offeror shall include an accompanying schedule narrative to demonstrate the schedule’s logic, constraints, and the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements. The narrative should include, but not be limited to (a) the offeror’s plan to procure its construction material along with key long lead procurement items, (b) constraints on the schedule presented (such as if the offeror plans to utilize multiple crews, or more than one shift, or work an extended workweek to meet the required construction completion date, weather, material availability, etc.), and (c) the integration of any key subcontractor firms. The narrative should also include identification of the critical path, key construction milestones and features of work, concurrent activities, and key deliverables. The length of the schedule should be in compliance with the stated Period of Performance. The project schedule should contain a sufficient amount of activities and all key milestones which demonstrate an understanding of the project scope.

b. Factor 2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s preliminary schedule and narrative to determine the extent of the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements.

The Government will evaluate the contract duration presented in the preliminary schedule to determine if it satisfies the requirements of the Government’s RFP. The Government will also review the schedule for construction phasing and the logic shown concerning integration and/or sequencing construction work on the different elements of the project, in determining whether the schedule shown is realistic and obtainable. Greater weight may be given to feasible schedules which provide detail beyond identifying and including the major construction milestones and project elements, such as procurement activities, interim milestones, major and secondary features of work, etc.

The Government will review the schedule and narrative for how well it identifies and addresses constraints on the performance of the work, such as labor, material availability, permits, etc. In its evaluation, the Government will consider the extent to which the schedule and narrative demonstrate compliance with all requirements with regard to proposed activities. Greater weight may be given to detailed narratives which clearly identify critical schedule related issues and potential problems and discuss meaningful mitigation strategies to avoid sources of potential delays. Greater weight may also be given to schedules and narratives which demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of all of the elements of the project scope of work.

The Government will evaluate the completeness of the schedule to assure it meets the above requirements and will analyze activity durations, and logic sequence of the activities. Resource loading of activities is not to be shown. The contract awardee shall submit a Baseline Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) in accordance with the specifications after award.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule of an offeror’s proposal. In rating the offeror, the Government will focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The chart below explains the rating which will be applied to the Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule portion of the offeror’s proposal, based on how well the offeror’s proposal meets this factor’s requirements.

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 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.

C.4.3 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Factor 3 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.

For the purpose of this evaluation:

A “recent” project is defined as a construction project which (1) has been completed within the last five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction. Ongoing projects that are at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date may be considered “more recent” for the purpose of considering the project’s relevance.

A “relevant” project is defined as a recent project with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as shore to ship utilities construction (new construction or renovation) performed Outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS). Shore to ship utilities construction projects performed in GCC countries will be considered to have a “more similar” scope than those performed in non-GCC, OCONUS countries, and accordingly, may be considered more relevant.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $2 million. Projects with a total value of between $10M and $60M will be considered to have a “more similar” cost magnitude, and accordingly, may be considered more relevant.

a. Factor 3 Proposal Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information for at least two (2) but no more than five (5) projects that have been performed by the offeror. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation. An offeror may submit projects for evaluation for which it performed as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. Past performance information related to an offeror’s proposed subcontractor’s projects will not be evaluated. If an offeror is a partnership or Joint Venture, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by (1) the partnership or Joint Venture, and (2) projects performed by entities that comprise the partnership or Joint Venture. The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one partner or co-venturer, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the partner or co-venturerfor that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the partner or co-ventureron the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner or co-venturer will be performing on the solicitation project.

An offeror shall submit its project experience using a separate Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 1), Project Summary Form (Attachment 2), and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each project submitted. The offeror should include a project description on the Project Summary Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and cost magnitude. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted in the appropriate space provided on the Project Summary Form. The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Project Summary Form.

The offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance for the applicable project submitted, as those references may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality of 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, Operations and Maintenance (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, or otherwise authenticate the past performance information submitted.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ 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. The Government is under no obligation to employ any particular measure to obtain past performance information directly from clients.

In order to ensure that projects are considered under this factor, offerors should obtain completed PPQs. In its evaluation, the Government reserves the right to rely on data collected from other sources, including Government investigations and interviews.

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, Mr. Jeffrey A. Walker at jeffrey.a.walker@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQs for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions for other projects. However, offerors shall not merely incorporate these PPQs into their proposals by reference.

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.

FALSIFIED 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 ACTIVITY.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangements, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the offeror’s Dun & Bradstreet Report, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact Government field representatives or any sources it deems appropriate.

b. Factor 3 Evaluation Criteria:

The Past Performance evaluation considers three aspects (recency, relevancy, and quality), and assesses the probability an offeror will meet contract requirements should that offeror be awarded a contract. The evaluation results in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror. This is the only formal "rating" applied at the Past Performance Factor level. For the purposes of this evaluation, references to the offeror’s past performance means the past performance of the offeror or, if the offeror is a partnership or Joint Venture, the past performance of the partners or co-venturers.

The three aspects that make up the evaluation are discussed below.

1. Recency: The first aspect considered is the recency of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will consider whether the offeror’s submitted projects are “recently completed,” as that term is defined above. More recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence assessment.

2. Relevancy: The second aspect considered in this evaluation involves a determination as to how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror is to the solicitation’s effort, as the term “relevant” is defined above.

Projects that are more “relevant” will likely be considered a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on Performance Confidence assessment. In arriving at the single Performance Confidence rating, the Government will first consider how relevant the offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. While the relevancy consideration is a significant contributor to the final Past Performance rating, 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.

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.

3. 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 make an overall determination as to how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Confidence Assessment Rating. After the Government assesses the recency, relevancy, and quality of the projects submitted, the final step of the Past Performance evaluation requires a Performance Confidence assessment. The Performance Confidence Rating assigned under the Past Performance factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the work required in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected, including information for projects that do not meet the solicitation's definition of "relevant", and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends in contractor performance, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The Government places a higher value on past performance for which documented successful outcomes are both available and supported by independent outside source conformation (for example, CPARS, other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror). The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to the offeror from Governmental and non-Government sources and databases.

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 the Past Performance factor, compared to past performance submitted for 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, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offerors past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) may regard a rating of Neutral Confidence less favorably than a rating of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” where those ratings may be associated with relatively lower risk of unsuccessful performance, and where a Neutral Confidence rating may not facilitate a risk assessment.

The following criteria will be used to establish the Performance Confidence rating assigned to the Factor 3 - Past Performance portion of the offeror’s proposal:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence No 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 performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. This offeror shall receive an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating.

C.5 PRICE FACTOR

C.5.1 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

In addition to the following Factor 4 Proposal Submission Requirements for evaluation, the offeror must include all items listed under paragraph A.4 Volume II – Factor 4 Price Proposal in its Volume II submission.

The Government will evaluate the total proposed price to include all options.

a. Factor 4 Proposal Submission Requirements:

Price proposals shall include the following:

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

2. Completed SF 1442, Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule. All Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) shall be completed with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

3. Completed Proposal Schedule and Cost Breakdown Sheet in an Excel format. Ensure figures and totals match

Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule. This supplemental information may be used to aid the Government in determining the fairness and reasonableness of an offeror’s proposed price. The total price reflected on the Proposal Schedule and Cost breakdown sheet should correspond to the price submitted on the CLIN schedule.

Any discrepancies could be considered a deficiency and result in an incomplete proposal evaluation.

Offerors should note that the Government intends to award the contract without entering into discussions or price negotiations. Therefore, offerors should submit their best and final price for consideration.

b. Factor 4 Evaluation Procedures and Descriptions:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

1. The price proposal is complete. To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data that is requested to evaluate the price. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

2. The price proposal is balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. An offeror’s proposal may be unacceptable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. The price proposal is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given based upon comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals). Consideration is also given to the technical and functional capabilities of the offeror as compared to its price.

DFARS 252.236-7010 states that “offers from firms that do not qualify as United States firms will be evaluated by adding 20 percent to the offer. For purposes of the price evaluation, if the offeror is JV, the offeror will be considered a “US firm” if at least one of the JV partners qualifies as a US firm.

Price evaluations will not result in an assigned adjectival rating. Contract line items will be analyzed to determine whether unit prices proposed for the work to be performed reflects the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as, material, labor, equipment, etc.