15-R-0002-01_Released.pdf

ANA_ANP 15-0002

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to correct the relative importance of factors for phase tw o in section 00 12 00.

This is the only change and all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Sep-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W5J9JE-15-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Sep-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Sep-2015

CODE

TRANSATLANTIC AFGHANISTAN ENGINEER - TAA

DISTRICT (TAA), US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CETAA-CT, BAGRAM AE 09354

W5J9JE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W5J9JE-15-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00120: EVALUATION

PHASE ONE BASIS OF EVALUATION AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Phase One Basis of Evaluation.

a. To determine the Most Highly Qualified contractors, a source selection process will be used that involves evaluation of qualification proposals.

b. Phase One evaluation Factors All Phase One non-price evaluation factors shall be evaluated using reasoned judgment that results in the assignment of a combined technical/risk rating as follows: Outstanding with Very Low risk, Good with Low risk, Acceptable with Moderate risk, Marginal with High risk, or Unacceptable encompassing a proposal that is unawardable.

c. After evaluating Phase-one proposals, the Contracting Officer shall select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit Phase-two proposals. The maximum number of offerors to submit Phase-two proposals shall not exceed five.

d. In the case of the Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation factor, there are two aspects to the evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort of this acquisition. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a Past Performance Relevancy Rating as follows: Very Relevant; Relevant; Somewhat Relevant; Not Relevant, as the source selection requires a greater level of relevance discrimination.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts. Past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a Performance Confidence Assessment as follows: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown Confidence (Neutral). In those circumstances where an offeror does not have a relevant record of past performance or for whom past performance information is not available, that offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on its past performance. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW 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.

e. There may be contained within the evaluation factors certain mandatory / material requirements to be met for evaluation. There are also contained within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory / material requirement will result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable / nonresponsive.

(A final determination that an offer is unacceptable nonresponsive means that an award to the offeror involved cannot be made.) 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 the proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, unless the Government elects to initiate discussions with some or all of the offerors in accordance with appropriate provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offerors involved can be made. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements that are annotated with the words such as “should” or “may” might result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings involved and may have significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award.

f. The Government intends to select most highly qualified offerors without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if determined by the Government to be in its best interests. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if that is determined by the Source Selection Authority to be necessary.

g. The technical evaluation team shall identify significant strengths, strengths, significant weakness, weaknesses and deficiencies in each proposal and assign a rating of Outstanding/Very Low Risk, Good/Low Risk, Acceptable/ Moderate Risk, Marginal/High Risk, or Unacceptable in response to the “Experience” and “Technical Approach” factors. A Relevancy and Confidence Assessment rating will be assigning to the “Past Performance” factor. A significant strength is an aspect of an offerors 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. A strength is an aspect of the 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. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A 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.

h. Each proposal should be submitted in a format that is representative of the items to be evaluated in the order that they are described below.

2. Relative Importance of Phase One Evaluation Factors.

For Phase One evaluation purposes, the Experience and Past Performance factors are approximately equal in weight and are more important than the Technical Approach factor.

3. Evaluation Factors.

A. FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

B. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

C. FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 1:

The offeror shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A), and Experience Form – (Attachment B) at the end of the section. Offerors may identify national, state and local government and private contracts that are similar to these requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project and experience of one JV partner will be considered experience of the JV.

Submission of projects that are currently substantially completed (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no later than six (6) years preceding the date of this Solicitation will be considered. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Experience of divisions or units not performing on this contract will not be considered. The offeror shall submit no more than five (5) example projects or portions of projects similar in scope to the following:

Design-Build construction projects performed in Central or Southwest Asia requiring the construction of electrical transmission/Distribution lines and new/expansion of substations of 220kV/20kV.

The offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. As twenty (20)% of work associated with this project is required to be self-performed, the offeror should demonstrate prior experience by indicating on at least one previous project all self-performed activities related to high-voltage construction. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no later than the past six years preceding the date of this solicitation.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

Proposals will be evaluated to determine design-build experience of the offeror’s team for relevant contracts and/or projects of the scope and complexity of the project contained in the specifications. Offerors shall provide no more than five (5) projects that demonstrate the breadth and depth of an Offeror’s relevant experience in design and construction of high voltage transmission systems and substations performed in Central or Southwest Asia. Offerors are encouraged to submit the maximum number of relevant projects to increase likelihood that the above requirements are met and elements warranting higher rating are included. A proposal providing fewer than five (5) projects could receive the highest rating available, to the extent that the projects submitted are fully relevant projects. Offerors with three or more projects clearly illustrating self-performance in the installation of high voltage transmission lines and substation will be rated higher than those with less.

1. A fully relevant project is the design and construction of a project consisting of power distribution lines and structures 220kV/20kV and associated new or expansion of existing substations, that was substantially completed (at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed within the last six (6) years of the issue date of this RFP, performed in Afghanistan, with a contract value of at least $5 Million.

2. For those projects that do not meet the criteria for a fully relevant project, the offeror should submit projects that demonstrate experience in the following areas (in descending order of importance):

a. Projects that demonstrate experience with Design and Construction (Design- Build) of power transmission/distribution lines, towers and substations of at least 20 kV constructed in Central or Southwest Asia.

b. Construction of projects consisting of power transmission/distribution lines, structures and substations of 220kV/20 kV constructed in Afghanistan.

c. Construction of projects consisting of power transmission/distribution lines, structures and substations of 220kV/20 kV constructed in Central or Southwest Asia.

d. Design projects consisting of power transmission/distribution lines, structures and substations of 220kV/20 kV performed in Central or Southwest Asia.

3. If a joint venture or subcontractors are proposed, the proposal will receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence that either the joint venture entity or the Offeror and subcontractors have worked successfully together on relevant projects.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS: EXPERIENCE

Instructions: The evaluation team will individually evaluate the proposal information provided. A consensus rating will be determined and recorded using forms provided in Appendix D.

Factor 1 Experience shall be evaluated using combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical ratings for this factor. Combined

Technical/Risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings as follows:

Outstanding with Very Low risk, Good with Low risk, Acceptable with Moderate risk, Marginal with High risk, or Unacceptable encompassing a proposal that is unawardable.

ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Outstanding

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

Good

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

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

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offeror-Submitted Past Performance Information.

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 2:

The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Appendix D) or DD Form 2626 for each project submitted under Factor 1, Attachment B (not to exceed five (5) projects).

Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from an owner's perspective. The Offeror and its design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current contact information on the specific project experience sheets provided. The Government will use the specific project experience sheets submitted for past performance that were completed or well underway on projects within six (6)) years preceding the date of the solicitation. Include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the Offeror was rated. Additional past performance examples may be submitted for consideration on any member of a Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project. Projects cited shall be currently well underway (at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. The team members may also briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified contracts and the team member’s corrective action.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

A PPQ or DD Form 2626 shall be submitted for each project. The PPQ shall be submitted whether completed by the client or not.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years such as awards, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. This information shall be limited to the projects submitted.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating current and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete current and past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first two (2) pages of the PPQ (Attachment C) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact (see paragraph Part E – Addressing/Proposal Submission) prior to the proposal closing date.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on its own past performance, and on the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other information determined appropriate by the Government.

The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the D-B team's recent (substantially completed longer than 6 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Factor “Experience”. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Experience Factor and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror furnished references, or to review personal knowledge or any other sources of information.

Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The second is to evaluate how well the contractor performed on that work of determined relevance.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS: PAST PERFORMANCE

The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant are defined in the Experience Factor. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. This source selection will be conducted using discrimination ratings for the past performance evaluation. The evaluation team shall use terms described in the table below to assign past performance ratings:

Table 1. 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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to sub-contractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see PPQ-0 Attachment C). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to, telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 2.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW 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.

TABLE 2: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 3:

Offerors shall submit a narrative on their intended technical approach to the construction of the type of facilities specified in the RFP. Offeror’s submissions shall be limited to ten (10) pages or less, clearly but concisely describing the technical approach to execution of the contract. At a minimum the narrative should respond to the questions, or address the topics, outlined below:

- Does the Offeror’s team demonstrate an understanding of the security requirements in the solicitation and the country specific requirements for planning and performing security?

- Does the Offeror demonstrate an understanding of the right-of-way acquisition requirements which include coordination with the Ministry of Energy & Water (MEW) district-level government officials and local village elders.

- Does the Offeror demonstrate a suitable understanding of the process to enable it to adequately address and anticipate the risks associated with design-build processes?

- What is the Offeror’s plan to integrate construction subcontractors into the quality control process?

Identify and explain the roles and responsibilities of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of construction phases. Also, include a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor, that requires the offeror to perform 40% of the work.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of the design-build process and its capability to execute an awarded contract and meet the contract requirements. Offerors are cautioned that the Technical Approach Narrative shall not exceed ten (10) pages and that the Government's evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained in the first ten pages. Any information, however relevant to the technical approach, after the tenth page will not be read or considered for evaluation.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Instructions: The evaluation team will individually evaluate the proposal information provided. A consensus rating will be determined and recorded using forms provided in Appendix D.

Factor 3 Technical Approach shall be evaluated using combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical ratings for this factor.

Combined Technical/Risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings as follows: Outstanding with Very Low risk, Good with Low risk, Acceptable with Moderate risk, Marginal with High risk, or Unacceptable encompassing a proposal that is unawardable.

ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

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

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

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

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

PHASE TWO - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Phase Two Basis of Award.

a. The Government intends to award one contract to a responsible Offeror whose proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing for the project, and whose proposal offers the lowest price technically acceptable proposal as described herein.

b. Only one firm will be awarded a fixed-price contract as a result of this RFP.

c. Note: The Government intends to make award of the contract without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions, all Offerors are encouraged to include their best pricing for the Contract in their initial proposal.

d. Factors to be Evaluated. Factors from Phase One will not be considered in the evaluation of Phase Two proposals. The Phase Two proposals will be evaluated on three (3) evaluation factors.

Phase Two Evaluation Factors:

1. Factor 1 – Milestone Schedule

2. Factor 2 – Key Personnel

3. Factor 3 – Price

Relative Importance of Factors:

For Phase Two evaluation purposes, the Milestone and Key Personnel factors are approximately equal in weight and are more important than the Price factor.

e. Basis for Award. Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation meets or exceeds the technical requirements and provides the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable proposal to the Government.

FACTOR 1: MILESTONE SCHEDULE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed schedule to meet the period of performance as identified in the solicitation. This is defined as 900 calendar days from Notice to Proceed.

The schedule is to be submitted in a Gantt Chart format. Any proposal showing construction completion of more than 900 calendar days after NTP will be deemed unacceptable. The schedule must clearly identify the critical path and at a minimum, the schedule must identify the following milestones:

a. D/Bcontract Award and Project NTP

b. Precontraction meeting

c. Data Collection/Site Investiation/Survey Completion

d. 35% Design Submittal

e. 65% Design Submittal

f. 65% Design Approval and Construction NTP

g. 99% Design Submittal

h. 100% Design Submittal

i. Mobilization and Commissioning

j. Base Big and Options Construction Completion

k. Contract Completion

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

This factor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability (completeness of the schedule) in meeting the above required work within the stated contract performance period of 900 calendar days after NTP through:

1) Graphical representation of a critical path (cp)

2) An assessment of the offeror’s schedule

3) That identifies at least the minimal milestones listed, that the milestones are in a logical sequence and logical duration for the work to be performed

4) Logical and realistic sequencing of events, and duration of each activity and meet the stated period of performance.

Resource loading of activities is not to be shown. The contract awardee shall submit a Baseline Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) in accordance with Specification after the award.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS: MILESTONE SCHEDULE

This factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon the collective findings of the evaluation board. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP, utilizing adjectival ratings as shown below:

Factor 1 – Milestone Schedule Adjectival Rating Definition

Proposal meets milestone schedule in accordance with the RFP and within the stated period of performance.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet milestone schedule material requirements stated in the RFP and/or exceeds the stated period of performance.

FACTOR 2: KEY PERSONNEL

(A). The offeror shall provide resume information concerning the qualifications and experience of its intended key on-site construction management and supervision personnel as identified below:

**Note: If proposed key personnel are not presently members of the offeror’s organization, irrevocable letter of commitment from the proposed key person must be submitted in order for that person to be considered.**

(i) Electrical Transmission/Distribution Design Specialist The Design Specialist shall be a U.S. Registered Professional Engineer (or other recognized licensure process from another country through which an engineer becomes authorized to provide professional services to the public), with at least 8 years design experience on medium voltage electrical projects of at least 20kV involving substations and transmission lines.

(ii) On-site Safety Officer (Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) shall meet the requirements of EM 385-1-1 (a). The SSHO shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of safety experience on construction projects with a minimum of five (5) years of safety experience on medium voltage electrical projects of at least 220kV involving substations and transmission lines.

(b). The SSHO(s), as a minimum, must have completed the 30-hour OSHA Construction safety class or as an equivalent.

(c). SSHOs shall maintain this competency through 24 hours of formal safety and health related coursework every four (4) years.

(iii) On-site Construction Quality Control (CQC) System Manager (Contractor Quality Contract Systems Manager (CQCSM)) The CQCSM shall have a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or Sciences and a minimum of 5 years experience as a CQCSM or Superintendent, with a minimum of 2 of those 5 years on medium voltage electrical projects of at least 220kV involving substations and transmission lines. See specs for additional required training course, Page 266, paragraph 3.4.4.

(iv) On-Site Construction Manager (CM) The CM shall have Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, Architecture or Construction Management and a minimum of 8 years experience as a Construction manager, with a minimum of 3 of those 8 years on medium voltage electrical projects of at least 20kV involving substations and transmission lines.

Any changes to the key personnel identified in the proposal must meet the minimum acceptable criteria and can only be approved by the Contracting Officer.

(B) Each resume shall not exceed three pages in length. All resumes must include the following information to the extent required by the solicitation:

1. Name of person

2. Proposed project assignment

3. Name of firm with which presently associated and/or employed

4. Years of experience as it applies to the position that would be filled

5. Educational degree(s), year of graduation and institution

6. Active professional registration (if any), with registration number

7. List of projects in which the individual has worked to include name of project(s), project location(s), beginning and completion dates, and work assignments performed.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

The Government will compare this resume information against the minimal criteria noted above. Failure to satisfy a material requirement for any of the personnel listed will be a basis for receiving an unacceptable rating. Substitution of proposed Key Personnel following contract award shall only be permitted with the express consent of the Contracting Officer. Proposed substitutions shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth herein.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS: KEY PERSONNEL

Each factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings of the evaluation board. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP, utilizing adjectival ratings as shown below:

Factor 2 – Key Personnel Adjectival Rating Definition

The key personnel submitted in the proposal meet all of the minimum qualifications identified in the RFP.

Unacceptable One or more of key personnel submitted in the proposal do not meet all of the minimum qualifications / material requirements identified in the RFP.

FACTOR 3: PRICE

The price proposal shall include the following:

(1) Signed and dated Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) with amendments acknowledged.

(2) Section 00 00 10, Completed Price Schedule (pricing information for all contract line items) Offerors must submit completed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

(3) Supplemental Price Breakdown. The offeror shall submit a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in Excel format along with the offeror’s cost proposal. This supplemental information may be used to aid the Government in evaluating price proposals in determining the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. The total price reflected on the price breakdown sheet should correspond to the price submitted on the bid schedule. Any discrepancies could be considered a deficiency and result in an incomplete proposal evaluation. If there are any discrepancy between the bid schedule and the price breakdown sheet the bid schedule will govern.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

a. Completeness: To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary 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.

b. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1). For Price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), technical, and functional capabilities of the Offeror. The Offeror's price will be evaluated to determine if any are unreasonably high or low in relation to the anticipated work under the contract, as well as with current industry standards.

Price will be evaluated and considered, but will not be rated. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for the project to determine whether the offered price is reasonable. The contract line items will also be analyzed to determine whether the unit prices are realistic and balanced for the work to be performed, reflecting a clear understanding of the Statement of Work requirements and the risk inherent in the Offeror’s approach as described in the overall Technical Approach for the contract, and consistent with the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to the independent Government estimate, applicable statutory limitations, prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals) and the technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror.

If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

Price proposals that are unrealistically high or low in price when compared to the Government estimate and market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the proposal being rated lower or considered unacceptable. Price realism may be performed to determine that the price offered is consistent with the effort proposed.

(End of Summary of Changes)