W5J9JE-16-R-0001-0002.pdf

W5J9JE-16-R-0001

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

'W5J9JE-16-R-0001 ENTITLED ‘FY16 TRANSATLANTIC AFGHANISTAN RAPID CONSTRUCTION' Amendment 0002 This solicitation is amended as follow s:

1. Provide solicitation clarifications

2. Provide an extension of the proposal due date.

Refer to the amendment continuation page for further information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 32

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Mar-2016

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-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Feb-2016

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 X is extended, 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

30-Mar-2016

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SECTION _ - SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT 00002 TO SOLICITATION W5J9JE-16-R-0001

ENTITLED ‘FY16 TRANSATLANTIC AFGHANISTAN RAPID CONSTRUCTION (TARC)’

IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. CORRECT THE FOLLOWING IN SECTION 00 21 00 – INSTRUCTIONS,

CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Paragraph 1.1 ‘GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK’ has been revised to include the following:

Design Build contracts are construction contracts that include both design and construction in a single contract. The design build contractor is responsible for all aspects of design and construction in a design build contract.

A ‘Site-Adapt’ contract is a Design Build contract that has advanced design included and provided by the Government in the request for proposal. In many cases, a ‘Site Adapt’ Design Build contract will reference and include a standard design and it is the Government's intent that the standard design plans and specifications will be strictly followed.

All Design Build contracts will require some level of design, even if it is incidental design as most often associated with Site Adapt Design Build contracts.

Paragraph 1.8 ‘ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS’ has been revised to include the following:

The Government will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

Paragraph 1.9 ‘PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS’ has been revised to correct the POC information for the contracting officer:

Contracting Officer – Mr. Frank Sanchez U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District Phone: 540-723-4862

Email: frank.sanchez.jr@usace.army.mil has been updated to:

Ms. Leigh A. Lucas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District Phone: 540-678-1187 Email: leigh.a.lucas@usace.army.mil

Paragraph 1.11 ‘JOINT VENTURES AND SUBCONTRACTORS PROPOSAL

REQUIREMENTS’ has been revised to include the following:

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

Paragraph 1.13 ‘DEFINITIONS’ has been revised to include the following:

10. Risk. A risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance

2. CORRECT THE FOLLOWING IN SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-

DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES:

Paragraph 2.0 ‘GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS’ for now includes the following:

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

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.

Paragraph 3.0 ‘PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

AND EVALUATION FACTORS’ now includes the following:

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.

Paragraph 5.1 ‘Submission Requirements’ for Factor 1 PAST PERFORMANCE now includes the following:

Offerors have the option of submitting either a PPQ or a DD Form 2626 for each project submitted under Factor 2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact on all PPQs. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into its 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.

NOTE: SUBMITTING A FALISIFIED PPQ OR DD FORM 2626

MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF

CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE

CONTRACTOR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE

CONTRACTOR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE

ENTITY.

Under the definition of a ‘relevant project’ water treatment facility has been removed.

Under the definition of ‘recent’ the following change has been made:

Projects cited shall be currently well underway or construction substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% 80% construction progress completed) within eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

Paragraph 6.1 ‘Submission Requirements’ for Factor 2 SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE has been revised from:

At a minimum, one project must be a design-build project. Offerors must describe the following in its design-build project:

to

Offerors must describe the following in its design-build or site adapt project submission:

Under the definition of a ‘relevant project’ water treatment facility has been removed.

Under the definition of ‘recent’ the following change has been made:

Projects cited shall be currently well underway or construction substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% 80% construction progress completed) within eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

3. EXTEND THE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DUE DATE FOR A TOTAL OF SEVEN

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF W5J9JE-16-R-0001 - AMENDMENT 0002.

Proposal submission due date has been revised to:

April 6, 2016 4:30 PM Local Kabul Time

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 11 00 - STANDARD FORM (SF) 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 09-Mar-2016 04:30 PM to 06-Apr-2016 04:30 PM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1.2 CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONTRUCTION COSTS

1.3 COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

1.4 OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

1.5 SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

1.6 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

1.7 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

1.8 ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

1.9 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

1.10 PROPOSAL FORMAT

1.11 JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1.12 REQUIRED REGISTRATIONS

1.13 DEFINITIONS

1.14 PROVISIONS

1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

The purpose of this Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to provide rapid Design-Build and Site-Adapt construction services in Afghanistan. The work completed under this MATOC will cover a wide range of construction and services, including but not limited to, design-build/site-adapt, incidental demining, site assessments, general building renovation, bridges, other civil work type projects, and road and pavement repair.

This MATOC is being implemented to streamline the procurement process, assist in the rapid award of construction projects within Afghanistan to support the evolving needs of the Afghan Government, and to continue to increase and satisfy capacity development of the Afghanistan construction industry. Pursuant to Public Law 110-181 Section 886, competition will be limited to Afghan firms.

Performance Period: The MATOC will have a base period of one (1) year and four

(4) one-year options.

Maximum MATOC Capacity: Not-to-exceed $250,000,000.00 for the life of the

MATOC.

Minimum Guarantee: The minimum guarantee amount is $10,000.00 for each indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract award. In the event that no task orders are awarded under a contract, the minimum guarantee will be paid at the end of that contract’s period of performance.

Task Order Limitations: Competitively awarded task orders valued from a minimum of $30,000 to a maximum value of the current trade agreements to construction contracts, which is currently $7,358,000. This value is revised by the U.S. Trade Representative approximately every two (2) years and can be referenced under FAR 25.402.

Number of Awards: The Government intends to advance fifteen (15) to twenty (20) offerors from Phase One to Phase Two, from which it anticipates awarding eight (8) to twelve (12) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to form the “MATOC pool”. However, the government reserves the right to advance offerors and award to more, less, or none at all from both phases. More or fewer offerors may remain in the pool through on ramping and off ramping procedures. At any time after initial awards, the government may conduct an open season to add additional MATOC awardees. The need for additional MATOC awardees is dependent upon various factors, to include, a lack of adequate task order competition, original awardees exiting the pool, the need to enhance the pool of expertise for new task orders, or other causes that determine an open season is in the best interest of the government.

Currency: All task orders will be awarded, invoiced, and paid in accordance with

DFARS clause 252.232-7014 – Notification of Payment in Local Currency (Afghanistan).

This MATOC will be used to award task orders for design-build and site-adapt construction projects in the Transatlantic Afghanistan (TAA) Area of Responsibility (AOR), which includes all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.

Subsequent to award of a MATOC pool, this solicitation will result in award of an initial task order for the seed project to one of the MATOC awardees. Award of the initial seed project will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government.

1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The scopes of work for task orders issued under this contract include, but is not limited, to the following types of work:

New construction that may include:

o Incidental de-mining, o Site Assessments, o General Building Renovation, o Road and Pavement Repair, o Soil Remediation (collapsible soil) o Incidental Environmental Remedial Work

Design Build contracts are construction contracts that include both design and construction in a single contract. The design build contractor is responsible for all aspects of design and construction in a design build contract.

o Design-build projects are defined as:

Offerors shall submit complete design analysis, plans and specifications for all design submittal stages required by the contract. Design submittal content shall include field testing, laboratory testing, design analysis, and plans and specifications for:

geotechnical report; existing topographic survey; final grading/drainage plans; electrical distribution system; and all other site work features not included in the furnished plans and specifications.

A ‘Site-Adapt’ contract is a Design Build contract that has advanced design included and provided by the Government in the request for proposal. In many cases, a ‘Site Adapt’ Design Build contract will reference and include a standard design and it is the Government's intent that the standard design plans and specifications will be strictly followed. All Design Build contracts will require some level of design, even if it is incidental design as most often associated with Site Adapt Design Build contracts.

Site-adapt projects are defined as:

Offerors shall construct all features of contract work (architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, etc.) in complete accordance with contract plans and specifications furnished by the Government. If the Site Investigation and Geotechnical Report indicate foundation design, filter compatibility, or drainage as shown in the standard drawings is inadequate, all necessary information (design analysis, plans and specifications) shall be submitted for review and approval to the Government. The Government shall be informed of this change to coordinate a contract modification. If changes to the foundation design or drainage are required, all other features of work shall be accomplished in strict compliance with the drawings, details and specifications provided in the contract, unless changes are requested under the changes clause.

1.2. CONTRACT COST CEILING LIMITATION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Contract Ceiling: The $250,000,000.00 MATOC ceiling shall be shared amongst all awardees as determined by the Government. The MATOC ceiling may not result in equal distribution amongst all awardees due to the fair opportunity process described in FAR part 16.505(b), Ordering.

1.3. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at:

www.fbo.gov under solicitation W5J9JE-16-R-0001.

It shall be the offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in its proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation. A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the Federal Business Opportunities web site (registration required) with the solicitation announcement.

1.4. OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet

Inquiries regarding the solicitation 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 offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation and view all questions by other offerors 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 up to 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 for Phase One: J9VIJA-5I6JQC The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase Two: TBD at Phase Two

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. An offeror 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 offerors 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.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals

Administrative questions and/or comments relative to these documents should be submitted via ProjNet-®

The POC’s for this solicitation are as follows:

Contract Specialist – Ms. N. L. Little U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District Phone: 540-722-6078 Email: natanielle.l.little@usace.army.mil

Contracting Officer – Ms. Leigh A. Lucas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District

Note: All questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Specialist via ProjNet-® no later than seven (7) calendar days before proposal due date , in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers.

1.5. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD/NAICS CODE

The Small Business size standard for NAICS code 237990 Other Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction is $36.5 million

1.6. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

1.7. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

The Government may hold a pre-proposal conference during Phase Two at the project site.

1.8. ACCURACY IN PROPOSALS

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments). The Government will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

1.9. PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS

Offerors shall submit their Phase One proposal via email. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits. PHASE ONE DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION. All information shall be confined to the appropriate tab, segregating factor submission requirements together. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Offerors shall submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the offeror.

The POC’s for email submission of proposals for this solicitation are as follows:

Contract Specialist –

Ms. N. L. Little U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District Email: natanielle.l.little@usace.army.mil

Ms. Leigh A. Lucas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic (TAA) District

1.10. PROPOSAL FORMAT

General Submission Requirements: All proposals shall be submitted and formatted in accordance with the proposal instructions provided below and in each individual evaluation factor.

a. Each volume shall be clearly identified. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Proposal documents shall be in PDF format and shall use the following page setup parameters:

i. Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1”

ii. Gutter – 0”

iii. From Edge – Header, Footer - 0.5”

b. Page Limitations:

I. Past Performance (Phase One) 15 pages

II. Specialized Experience (Phase One) 15 pages III. Organizational Management & Execution Plan (Phase One) 15 pages IV. Technical Approach for Design-Build Projects (Phase One) 10 pages V. Technical Approach to the Seed Project (Phase Two) 15 pages

VI. Price and Related Information (Phase Two) 10 pages

c. Page Size, Width – 8.5”, Height – 11”, or A4 size.

d. Title page, cover letter, index, and other title sheets will not count towards the total page count. Necessary charts and graphics may not be larger than 8.5" x 11". Charts and graphics should only contain the minimal text required to interpret the graphic (such as a concise caption or a map legend).

e. The following additional restrictions apply: A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size of not less than 8-point and may be landscape oriented. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

f. All price/cost breakdown information included to aid in the price/cost evaluation, shall be submitted in the format provided in Microsoft Office Excel compatible Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Office Excel 2010 or later. Files shall not contain classified data.

(i) The offeror’s name, address, and a telephone number should appear in the lower left corner of the title page of any document/volume to be evaluated. Title pages will not be counted toward page limits.

(ii) Volume number, section and date submitted should appear in the bottom right corner of each page (along with the revision number for the amended page, if necessary).

g. Electronic Format: Offerors should provide documents in read-only format, using .PDF files. All cost breakdown information to aid in the price evaluation shall be submitted in

Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2010 or later.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Files shall not contain classified information or data.

h. Number of copies: Submit one copy in electronic format by email.

1.11. JOINT VENTURES AND SUBCONTRACTORS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Joint Ventures: A joint venture is defined as 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 alliances”, 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 firms that are not included in the joint venture agreement.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each joint venture partner 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, i.e., a submission limitation of three (3) projects under the experience factor is not an allowance of three (3) projects for each of the joint venture partners. Prospective offerors that submit proposals may not change their firm (including LOC’s and proposed sub-contractors) or their joint venture firms, if selected for award. If the offeror proposes to change subcontractors or letters of commitment after award, the offeror may not change subcontractors or letters of commitment 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.

Subcontractors: The government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort.

Therefore, if an offeror wishes to be credited with the 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 subcontractor 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 will 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 letters of commitment after award, the offeror may not change subcontractors or letters of commitment 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.

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

All contractors and subcontractors working in Afghanistan need to be registered and vetted in JCCS. Where an Afghan-specific document is required in JCCS (ie: an AISA license) provide the equivalent version of the document from the country where the subcontractor is based.

1.12. REQUIRED REGISTRATIONS

Failure to have an active and completed registration in any one of the following databases at the time of Phase One proposal submission may determine an offeror’s proposal as non-responsive and removed from competition. Information contained within an offeror’s registration must be current and valid. The responsibility of maintaining current information contained in an offeror’s registration rests solely on the offeror.

a. System for Award Management (SAM): http://www.sam.gov/

b. Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS): https://www.jccs.gov/

c. Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA) License: http://www.aisa.org.af/

If an offeror is a joint venture (JV), the JV entity must have a valid registration representing the JV as one business/firm/entity. This is applicable to SAM, JCCS, and AISA. The government will not accept separate registrations and licenses for each separate entity representing the JV.

1.13. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating The rating for all technical factors except past performance will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

The following rating definitions will be utilized in the technical evaluation:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. 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.

Acceptable

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 contract performance is high.

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

Performance Risk Factor Rating Definitions. A relevancy rating of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant (each defined below) will be assigned to each offeror’s past performance submission.

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 relevancy rating will assist the SSEB in determining the confidence rating for past performance. A confidence rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown/Neutral Confidence (each defined below) will be assigned to the Performance Risk Factor. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for this factor:

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.

2. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

3. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

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

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

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

7. Uncertainties. Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

8. Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

9. Communications. Communications between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals and before establishment of the competitive range, are exchanges leading to establishment of the competitive range (if such communications are required).

Communications shall be limited to:

Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications shall address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and

Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain.

Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process.

Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the offeror to revise its proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes, and information relating to relevant past performance.

10. Risk. A risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance

1.14 PROVISIONS

Can be found subsequent to Section 00 22 20

SECTION 00 22 10 - PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE-DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE ONE OF A TWO-PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION

PROCEDURES

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION

FACTORS

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.0 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

7.0 TAB D – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT & EXECUTION PLAN

8.0 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH FOR DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

A – EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW SHEET

B – EXPERIENCE FORM

C – USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

D – CORPORATE CERTIFICATE

E – FINANCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

This procurement is being conducted using formal source selection procedures. The Government intends to advance fifteen (15) to twenty (20) offerors from Phase One to Phase Two, from which it anticipates awarding eight (8) to twelve (12) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to form the “MATOC pool”. However, the government reserves the right to advance offerors and award to more, less, or none at all from both phases.

Proposals for Phase One and Phase Two will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, according to the factors and subfactors identified in the solicitation.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

All of the submission items to be evaluated pertain to the prime offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a joint venture. The government will consider information provided concerning principal or primary subcontractors; however, unless a letter of commitment is provided establishing the likelihood that those subcontractors will actually be available for task order execution, then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process.

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

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the most highly qualified offerors in Phase One will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. In determining the most highly qualified offerors, the government will evaluate Phase One proposals to determine offerors who are responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1; who are responsive to the solicitation requirements; and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technical standards for non-price factors.

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.

Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits indicated in Section 00 21 00 and/or evaluation factors below. Phase One does not involve pricing submission.

3.0 PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION

FACTORS

There will be an evaluation of the performance capability proposals for conformance with the minimum Phase One RFP criteria, and the extent to which the proposals exceed those criteria.

While there is implicit intent to keep an offeror’s proposal effort to a minimum, proposals must provide adequate detail for evaluators to determine how the offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the evaluation criteria.

There will be an evaluation of all proposals by a Technical Evaluation Team (TET). The TET’s duty is the assignment of a fair, unbiased technical rating for each proposal based solely on the merits of the proposal. Proposals that do not conform to the terms and conditions contained in the solicitation will be eliminated from the competition and will not be eligible to proceed to Phase Two.

With the submission of Attachement E – there will be an evaluation of the offerors financial responsibility. In accordance with DFAR 232-072 Finanicial responsibility of contractors; the contracting officer will use the policies and procedures therein to determine the financial capability of all offerors.

Selection without Discussions: It is the intent of the Government to make a selection for Phase Two based upon initial offers, without further discussions or additional information. Therefore, submit your proposal on the most favorable terms from a technical standpoint. Do not assume you will have an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise your proposal. If selection is not possible from initial offers, discussions will be conducted.

There will be an evaluation of each proposal using Evaluation Factors. The evaluation method is the tradeoff process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to the evaluation factors, and shall be in the format prescribed herein, as well as in Section 00 21 00 – Instructions to Offerors.

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.

PHASE I FACTORS

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance.

FACTOR 2 – Specialized Experience.

FACTOR 3 – Organizational Management & Execution Plan.

Subfactors for Factor 3:

i. Key Personnel

ii. Organization

iii. Management Approach and Controls

FACTOR 4 – Technical Approach for Design-Build Projects.

NON-EVALUATION SUBMISSIONS:

Tab A 1: SF 1442 – Solicitation, Offer, and Award

Tab A 2: Representations, Certifications and Other Statement of Offerors

Tab A 3: Completed Financial Questionnaire (Attachment E)

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PHASE 1 EVALUATION FACTORS:

FACTOR NUMBER DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 Past Performance Factor 1 is equal to Factors 2 & 4

FACTOR 2 Specialized Experience Factor 2 is equal to Factors 1 & 4

FACTOR 3 Organizational Management & Execution Plan Factor 3 is more important than

Factors 1, 2, & 4 combined

FACTOR 4 Technical Approach for Design-Build Projects Factor 4 is equal to Factors 1 & 2

FACTOR 3

SUBFACTORS

DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Subfactor i. Key Personnel All three subfactors are equal to each other Subfactor ii. Organization Subfactor iii. Management Approach and Controls

4.0 TAB A 1 – STANDARD FORM 1442

Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorizes between the JV parties. If the Offeror is a Limited Liability Company, include a copy of the Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement.

If the Offeror has teaming agreements and/or letters of commitment, please include under this Tab.

5.0 FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Past performance is an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The offeror and the design firm (or offeror alone if design is be self-performed) shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation, current (or last known) phone numbers, and email addresses. Offerors are to use a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment C) for submission of its past performance information.

If an offeror has multiple divisions or units, it shall limit the projects submitted to those performed by the division, unit, or team member submitting the offer. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact provided by the offeror, and reserves the right to interview other individuals with relevant information.

Offerors have the option of submitting either a PPQ or a DD Form 2626 for each project submitted under Factor 2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact on all PPQs. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into its 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 DD Form 2626 is completed by the government agency at the time of evaluation (percentage of work completed or at completion of work). It is not a form that offerors complete in order to solicit feedback for purposes of proposal submission for projects of their choosing. As such, DD Form 2626 should already be completed, filled, and made part of the project files and is not editable after the fact. Offerors wishing to submit a DD Form 2626 in lieu of a PPQ, should ensure the submitted forms are completed and properly signed.

NOTE: SUBMITTING A FALISIFIED PPQ OR A DD FORM 2626 MAY BE

GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL,

REFERRAL OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL

OF THE CONTRACTOR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

A relevant project is defined as: Design-build and site-adapt construction of:

housing/barracks; dining facilities; equipment/vehicle maintenance facilities; operations facility; administrative/ headquarters facilities; command and control facilities;

communications centers; fire stations; waste management complexes; training facilities;

medical facilities (clinics/hospitals); fuel storage facilities; fuel distribution and storage systems; munitions storage; power plants; utilities infrastructure; reception, staging and onward integration (RSOI), facilities/areas; airfields and airfield support facilities. and water treatment facilities.

Recent is defined as: Projects cited shall be currently well underway or construction substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% 80% construction progress completed) within eight (8) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

The offeror shall briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified projects and any corrective action. For the design firm’s past performance to be considered, the offeror shall include a letter of commitment from that firm, unconditionally committing the design firm’s performance for task order execution should an award be made to the offeror.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will complete a performance risk assessment based upon the quality of the offeror’s past performance as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in offeror performance. The offeror and proposed design firm (if applicable) will be assessed in their totality to derive the offeror’s Past Performance rating.

Customers/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 subs or suppliers; safety; relations between customer and designer or offeror; level of support for such things as as-built documentation; O&M manuals;

training; correcting design or construction errors; warranty work; etc. The Government will not release the Past Performance Evaluation – Telephone Interview Forms to the offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

The Government will provide greater weight consideration on performance with documented successful outcomes of design-build construction projects which can be verified, for example, by telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS/FAPIIS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge from Government personnel.

The Government may base its judgment about the quality of an offeror’s past performance on (1) records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and (2) statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an offeror’s overall performance. The Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from any other sources.

The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects. The Government may elect to consider data obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror.

Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs provided by the offeror, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided.

An offeror may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel. Offerors that have no past performance record will be given an “Unknown Risk” rating. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance risk will be considered “unknown” or “neutral” IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

The evaluation team shall use terms described in Table 1 below to assess past performance for relevancy:

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…