W5J9JE-15-R-0028_NEI_PeK_RFP_30AUG15.pdf

NORTHERN ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECT (NEI) PUL-E KHUMRI / KARKAR SUBSTATION EXPANSION, BAGHLAN PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN

DESIGN-BUILD TWO-PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

FOR PHASE TWO, ALL PRICING SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN U.S. DOLLARS. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS SOLICITATION WILL BE PAID IN AFGHANI (LOCAL CURRENCY) IF THE CONTRACT IS AWARDED TO A HOST NATION VENDOR (AFGHAN). IF AWARD IS MADE TO OTHER THAN A HOST NATION VENDOR, THE CONTRACT WILL BE AWARDED IN U.S. DOLLARS. REFERENCE DFARS 252.232-7014.

PHUONG-THUY T LE 079-343-4105

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

30-Aug-2015

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______15 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________720 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

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

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

YES X NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________30 Sep 2015 (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 offers 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

TRANSATLANTIC AFGHANISTAN ENGINEER - TAA

DISTRICT (TAA), US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CETAA-CT, BAGRAM AE 09354

W5J9JE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

03:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

540-665-2758FAX:TEL: 079-343-4105 TEL: FAX:

W5J9JE-15-R-0028 77

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

W5J9JE-15-R-0028

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

DESIGN

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

DURING PHASE ONE.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

MOB/DEMOB

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

0003 1 Job

CONSTRUCT 20 KV DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

0004 1 Job

CONSTRUCT KARKAR SUBSTATION EXPANSION

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

0005 1 Job

CONSTRUCT 20KV TERMINATION

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

0006 1 Job

DEMINING

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

0007 1 Job

SECURITY

FFP

FOR INFORMATION ONLY. OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT PRICING

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS-PHASE ONE

A. General. Do not submit pricing information in Phase One. Faxed proposal submissions will not be considered.

Electronic proposal submission is the required method of transmission of proposals. Phase One proposals shall be clearly identified in the subject line of any email with the solicitation number.

Only up to five (5) of the most highly qualified firms as evaluated in Phase One will receive the Final RFP and be requested to provide Phase Two proposals. The following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause is applicable to this acquisition and may be viewed at: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

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

B. Summary of Phase One Submission Requirements: The Phase One qualification proposal must include:

1. Cover Letter (see content instructions below)

2. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Section 00600)

a. If the Offeror is a corporation, completed Corporate Certificate, OR

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

Partnership Agreement, OR

c. If the Offeror is a joint venture, completed Corporate Certificate for each member of the joint venture and provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

3. Subcontractor/ Letters of Commitment (if applicable).

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

5. Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00600). The Offeror shall complete all items contained in the Representation and Certifications.

6. Factor 1: Experience as described below, under Phase One Basis of Evaluation and Evaluation Factors, and Attachments (Attachment A and not more than 5 Attachment B forms).

7. Factor 2: Past Performance Questionnaire as described below, under Phase One Basis of Evaluation and Evaluation Factors and Attachment C (Past Performance Questionnaire Survey (See below-surveys completed by past customers/end users).

8. Factor 3: Technical Approach as described below, under Phase One Basis of Evaluation and Evaluation Factors

NOTE: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all past performance reference questionnaire surveys as outlined under Factor 2 are completed on or before the closing date and time of the Phase One Request for Qualifications.

C. Phase One Qualifications Proposal Format. The Phase One qualifications proposal must be in the following order with tabs dividing each section:

1. Cover Letter

2. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership

3. Letters of Commitment from Subcontractors (LOC) (if applicable)

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

5. Completed Representation and Certifications

6. FACTOR 1 Experience

7. FACTOR 2 Past Performance

8. FACTOR 3 Technical Approach

D. Proposal Preparation.

Cover Letter of the proposal should include:

a. Solicitation number/Phase One

b. The name, addresses, telephone number, and email address of the prospective Offeror

c. The DUNS number, CAGE Code, and TIN of the prospective Offeror

1. All Offerors are required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be determined non-responsive.

2. The request for qualification should contain a master "Table of Contents" for the total proposal. This master index should identify major areas by title, as well as page numbers and volume location. A copy of this master "Table of Contents” should be placed in front of each volume making up the total proposal.

3. The proposal consists of one (1) copy of the qualification proposal volume which contains all files in an Adobe portable document format (pdf). Each section of the volume must be individually tabbed and labeled.

4. The proposal must be prepared on 8-1/2" x 11" paper (11”X17” for drawings), A-4, bond paper and include a Title Page and a Table of Contents unless otherwise stated under each Factor. Margins should be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”), font face is Times New Roman, and font size should be no smaller than 10 point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on both sides. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified herein. The proposal must be tabbed. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required.

5. The Offeror shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of its proposal: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Do not disclose any source selection information to any unauthorized person.”

6. Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

7. Lack of applicable Letter(s) of Commitment is considered a deficiency and submissions lacking the applicable Letter(s) of Commitment may not be considered.

E. Addressing/Proposal Submission.

Electronic proposals submitted via email are the required method of transmission. Proposals will be sent to Thuy Le at Phuong-Thuy.T.Le@usace.army.mil and Ralph J. La Rosa at Ralph.J.Larosa@usace.army.mil.

Your Phase One qualification proposal is due no later than what is stated in Block 13 of the SF1442 to the above email address.

F. Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet. Inquiries regarding the Request for Qualifications shall be submitted as follows:

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

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

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

c. Inquiries must be submitted seven days prior to the proposal due date. Offerors will not be able to submit inquiries after this date as the ProjNet system must be shut down.

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

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 49D5EP-P3V82A

3. Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Amendments to the RFP. Any and all amendments to the Phase One Request for Qualification (RFQ) will be issued electronically and be available via www.fbo.gov . It is the Offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this RFQ and acknowledge any and all amendments in the text of the cover letter (amendment number and date acknowledged by Offeror) sent with their proposal package in response to this RFQ. Those Offerors selected to receive the Phase Two RFP will be notified how to access the Phase Two documents.

H. Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit. A formal site visit will not be conducted. Offerors are encouraged to visit the site prior to submitting a proposal for Phase Two.

I. Joint Ventures (JV). A joint venture is defined as follows: a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliance”, which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

Offerors proposing as joint ventures shall provide evidence that the joint venture as a legal entity has been duly formed. Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any contractors that are not included in the joint venture agreement.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole. Prospective Offerors that submit Phase One proposals may not change their firm (including LOC’s and proposed sub-contractors) or their joint venture firms, if selected to submit Phase Two proposals. If the Offeror proposes to change subcontractors or letter of committment after award, the Offeror may not change subcontractors or letter of committment without the Contracting Officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

J. Subcontractors. The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Therefore, if an Offeror wishes to be credited with experience and past performance of a subcontractor (i.e., a firm that is not a member of the joint venture), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the firm must be submitted. The letter of commitment must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a joint venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which a joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). If such a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience and past performance of subcontractor firms may not be considered. If the Offeror’s proposal includes the use of subcontractors, the Offeror may not change subcontractors without the Contracting Officer’s approval. If the Offeror proposes to change subcontractors or letter of committment after award, the Offeror may not change subcontractors or letter of committment without the Contracting Officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

K. System For Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including joint venture entities) shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). For more information, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

L. Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA): Offerors must have a valid Investment License issued by the AISA in order to be eligible for award. To obtain an AISA license, visit: http://www.aisa.org.af/.

M. Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS): Offerors must be registered in the JCCS vendor vetting database at https://www.jccs.gov/jccscoe/. Offerors who are not completely registered in JCCS at the close of the Phase One evaluation may be removed from further consideration for award.

N. Expenses Incurred. The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any response(s) to this solicitation.

O. Discussions. The Government intends to select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors in Phase One without conducting discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

P. Obtaining a D.U.N.S. Number. Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) Number. The Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) Number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial company Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). Call D&B at 1-866-705-5711 or access their website if you do not have a D-U-N-S number. The site addresses are http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform OR http://www.dnb.com/. You must have a different nine-digit D-U-N-S number for each physical location or different address in your company as well as each legal division that may be co-located.

Q. Late Proposals. Any proposal, modification, or revision received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and--(1) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 4:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or (2) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or (3) It is the only proposal received. However, a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

R. Point of Contacts (POC).

Ralph J. La Rosa Procuring Contracting Officer Ph: (540) 665-1238 Ralph.J.Larosa@usace.army.mil

Thuy Le Contract Specialist Ph: (540) 722-4868 Phuong-Thuy.T.Le@usace.army.mil

PHASE ONE BASIS OF EVALUATION

a. To determine the Most Highly Qualified Offerors, 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 Factor 2, Past Performance, 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 as the source selection requires a greater level of relevance discrimination. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a Past Performance Relevancy Rating as follows: Very Relevant; Relevant; Somewhat Relevant; and Not Relevant. 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. In situations of this kind, the adjective rating of Unknown Confidence (Neutral) will be assigned to the evaluation factor of Past Performance. The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to an Offeror from governmental and non-government sources and databases.

e. There may be contained within the evaluation factors certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. There are also contained within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable. (A final determination that an offer is unacceptable 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 the 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 it 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/No Worse than Moderate Risk, Marginal/High Risk, or Unacceptable in response to the “Experience” and “Technical Approach” factors. A Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned 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 weakness is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 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.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

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 (JV), 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 substantially complete (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 at least 20kV.

The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. As twenty percent (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 (at least 50% construction progress completed) 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 for relevant contracts and/or projects of the similar 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.

1. A fully relevant project is the design and construction of a project consisting of power distribution lines and structures of at least 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 $8 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 220 kV constructed in Central or Southwest Asia.

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

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

d. Design projects consisting of power transmission/distribution lines, structures and substations of at least 220 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 a 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 requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

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 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) 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 (well under way or turned over no 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.

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 recent and 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 recent 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 the four levels of relevancy 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 in 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). 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

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 3:

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

- Does the Offeror 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 20% 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 requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

PHASE TWO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

The following is a brief overview of the proposed Phase Two process for information only. It will only be applicable to those Offerors who will be selected to submit proposals in Phase Two. Do not submit Phase Two documentation during Phase One. Phase One submissions and evaluations will not be carried over into Phase Two. All Offerors selected to propose for Phase Two will be evaluated on only the Evaluation Factors outlined in the Phase Two RFP. This overview is INFORMATIONAL ONLY and is SUBJECT TO

CHANGE.

In Phase Two, an RFP will be issued to no more than five (5) most highest qualified firms evaluated in Phase One and will contain all contract requirements for the contract. In addition, the Phase Two RFP will also include the specifications for the project.

Phase Two Offerors will have no less than 30 days to provide their proposals. Phase Two of the solicitation shall require submission of a technical and price proposal based on the aforementioned Solicitation documents.

Proposals received in response to…