W5J9JE-16-R-0002.pdf

0012345678

This is a tw o-phase solicitation for a multiple aw ard task order contract (MATOC) for design-build, design-bid-build, and site-adapt construction requirements in Afghanistan. The government intends to aw ard a total of f ive (5) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts but reserves the right to aw ard more, less, or none under this solicitation.

Competition is restricted to only sources from Afghanistan. Offerors must have an active and valid ASIA license and an active and completed registration in SAM and JCCS at the time of Phase I proposal submission to be considered. Offerors must maintain their registrations throughout the solicitation phases and if aw arded a contract, throughout the contract's duration.

In accordance w ith CENTCOM Clause 5152.225-5916 Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access, all offerors and their subcontractors are required to be eligible at the time of Phase I submission, and remain eligible, if aw arded a contract, during the entire contract period of performance to include any w arranty period, for installation access to a U.S. and/or coalition installation, regardless of w hether the performance w ill take place on or off a U.S. or coalition installation.

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

14-Dec-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 _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________TASK ORDER

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 ______________29 Jan 2016 (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 _______120 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-16-R-0002 78

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-16-R-0002

Section Supplies or Services and Price

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

DESIGN BUILD

FFP

FOB: Destination

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: 0012345678

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

DESIGN-BID-BUILD

FFP

0003 1 Job

SITE-ADAPT

FFP

0004 1 Job

MINIMUM GUARANTEE

FFP

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

GENERAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE MATOC

The primary NAICS code is 236220 with a small business size of $36.5 million.

Competition is restricted to only sources from Afghanistan.

This solicitation is for a multiple award task order contract (MATOC) for construction services in Afghanistan using a design-build, two-phase procurement process. Resultant task orders under the MATOC will be on a firm-fixed-price (FFP) basis for design-build, site-adapt, and design-bid-build construction requirements. Vertical and horizontal construction of the following types of work is anticipated under the MATOC task orders: single and multiple-story facilities, perimeter walls, perimeter lighting, entry control points, guard towers, guard shacks, personal bunkers, barracks, dining facilities, latrines, laundry facilities, administrative buildings, classrooms, hangars, storage facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities, fuel storage and vehicle refueling points, medical clinics, fitness centers, electrical power generator and/or distribution, water supply/storage distribution, wastewater collection & treatment systems, wellhouses, storm sewer systems, roads, and parking structures.

Qualification proposals are requested under Phase I in which the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase II proposals. The government intends to advance eight (8) offerors to Phase II, from which it anticipates awarding five (5) 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.

Under Phase II, the government will seek technical and price proposals against the solicitation “seed” project. The intent of Phase II is to award a MATOC pool and to subsequently award the initial task order (seed project) to one of the MATOC awardees. The government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offeror or to reject all offers under Phase II.

The total estimated MATOC capacity is $49,500,000. The performance period for each ID/IQ contract award will be for a three year base (36 months). The minimum guarantee will be $10,000 for the entire contract ordering periods. 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. The $49.5M MATOC capacity is intended for the entire contract ordering period of performance; however, the government reserves the right to use the entire $49.5M capacity earlier than the three year ordering period of performance, if needed.

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.

TASK ORDER PROCEDURES

Task orders anticipated under the MATOC are expected to range from $1,000 to $8,000,000 for design-build, site-adapt, and design-bid-build construction requirements in Afghanistan.

Task orders will be competed amongst MATOC awardees using FAR Subpart 16.5. The scope of work will be defined in each individual task order request for proposal (RFP). The selection criteria, to include the source selection approach (whether a tradeoff or a lowest price technically acceptable process), will be provided in the individual task order RFP. Although each task order is unique, the typical evaluation criteria utilized at the task order level is expected to contain a technical approach and a price/price related factor. Task orders will be awarded on a firm-fixed-price (FFP) basis.

MATOC awardees will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for each task order requirement, unless:

a. The government’s need is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity to all MATOC awardees would result in unacceptable delays;

b. Only one of the MATOC awardees is capable of providing the work at the level of quality desired because the requirement is unique or highly specialized;

c. The task order must be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all MATOC awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or

d. It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

In those instances that meet one or more of the non-competitive exceptions above, the contracting officer will issue a written RFP with the task order scope of work requesting a complete and detailed price proposal, along with any necessary technical information from the given contractor. Upon proposal receipt, the government will review the contractor’s proposal submission, conduct discussions/negotiations if necessary, and issue the task order.

MATOC awardees will be provided as fair an opportunity as possible to be considered for task order requirements that do not fall within any non-competitive exceptions detailed above. The government may use streamlined procedures, including oral presentations, to solicit and award competitive actions. To provide for fair opportunity, the government shall issue requests for proposals at the task order level to every MATOC awardee. The RFP shall include the selection procedure, evaluation criteria, and the task order scope of work. Upon proposal receipt, the government will evaluate each proposal submission, conduct discussions/negotiations if necessary, and make an award that is consistent with the task order evaluation criteria. Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5.

The contracting officer may make deviations to this ordering process as circumstances dictate.

Under FAR 16.505(a)(10), a protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of an individual task order except for a protest on the grounds that the order increased the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued.

Task Order Ombudsman: The task order ombudsman is responsible for reviewing complaints from multiple award contractors and ensuring that all of the contractors are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for task orders consistent with procedures in the contract. However, it is not within the designated task order contract ombudsman's authority to prevent the issuance of an order or disturb an existing order. The designated task order ombudsman for this contract is PARC-WIN, 255 Fort Collier Road, Winchester, VA 22601.

PHASE I INSTRUCTIONS

PHASE I – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Qualification proposals are requested under Phase I in which the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase II proposals. The government intends to advance eight (8) offerors to Phase II from which it anticipates awarding five (5) 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.

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

Do not submit pricing information in Phase I.

The government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any responses to this solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to offerors are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation. Any and all amendments to the solicitation will be issued electronically and will be available via www.fbo.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this solicitation and acknowledge any and all amendments in its proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in its proposal or add conditions or qualifications to its offer. Should an offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that offeror may be determined non-responsive and removed from competition. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved prior to submission of an offer. Notwithstanding the above, the offeror must clearly describe in its qualification proposal any modifications to the contractual and/or technical terms and conditions of the solicitation contained in its offer.

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

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

1. REQUIRED REGISTRATIONS

Failure to have an active and completed registration in any one of the following databases at the time of Phase I 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.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT

Offerors are required to submit a proposal with at least the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be determined non-responsive and removed from the competition. The government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration.

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

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

i. Solicitation number

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

iii. Offeror’s DUNS Number, CAGE Code, AISA License Number, JCCS ID Number, and Tax ID

(TIN)

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

c. VOLUME I, QUALIFICATION (TECHNICAL) PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s qualification proposal is described under Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors. Do not submit pricing information.

i. Factor 1: Experience

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

iii. Factor 3: Organizational Management and Execution Plan

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

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

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

ii. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Section 00 45 00)

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

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

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

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

iv. Completed Financial Standing Questionnaire (Attachment A)

v. Copy of AISA license

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

The government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required, and any material in excess of what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered.

Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions are not understood.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

a. Proposals must be typed and submitted in English. Proposals submitted in a language other than

English will be rejected and not considered. Letters of Commitment and JV partner agreements, if not written in English, must be accompanied by an English translated copy with a signed statement by the authorized representative of each JV partner or subcontractor partners that the English translation is true and correct.

b. An offeror’s proposal shall be in an Adobe portable document format (PDF). An offeror’s qualification proposal and representation and certification information shall be submitted as two separate volumes (PDF files).

c. Proposals must be sized to print on 8 1/2” x 11” paper (11” X 17” for drawings). Margins shall be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”), font face shall be Times New Roman or Arial, and font size shall be no smaller than 10 point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page or a table of contents, are not included in the page limitation. Joint venture agreements and letters of commitment are also not included in page limitations.

d. Offerors shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of its proposal: “SOURCE

SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON.”

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Electronic proposals submitted via email is the required method of transmission and will be the only form of submission accepted. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the government emailing system by the date and time of the proposal deadline, e.g., undeliverable messages due to an offeror’s proposal size is not the responsibility of the government.

Proposals are due no later than what is stated in Block 13 of the SF1442 to the following email addresses:

Ralph J. La Rosa Thuy Le Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Office: (540) 665-1238 Office: (540) 722-4868 Ralph.J.Larosa@usace.army.mil Phuong-Thuy.T.Le@usace.army.mil

Late Proposals: Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the government after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before Phase I determinations are 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.

D. SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet is a web-based program that allows offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation and view all questions by other offerors and responses by the government.

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

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

3. Inquiries must be submitted seven (7) days prior to the proposal due date. Offerors will not be able to submit inquiries after this date.

4. To submit and review inquiries, offerors will need to use the inquiry key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

5. The Inquiry Key is: 8UT26I-3782P5

a. From the ProjNet home page link: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/ 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 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.

h. Submit questions or review questions and answers. An offeror who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that its 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.

E. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5, an unsuccessful offeror may request a preaward debriefing or a delayed debriefing after award by submitting a written request to the contracting officer within three (3) days after receipt of notice from exclusion of Phase II. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

PHASE I – BASIS OF AWARD

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase II proposals. In determining the most highly qualified offerors, the government will evaluate qualification proposals to determine those offerors who are responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1; who are responsive to the solicitation requirements; and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technical standards for non-price factors. The maximum number of offerors to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed eight (8).

The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate the experience and technical factors by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in each offeror’s proposal and assigning 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 not awardable. 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 an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance. 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.

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.

The government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions if the government determines that to do so would be in its best interests. Therefore, an offeror’s 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 contracting officer to be necessary or requested by the source selection authority (SSA).

A. EVALUATION FACTORS

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 convincing evidence is provided establishing the likelihood that those subcontractors will actually be available for this project, then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process. At the same time, an offeror that intends to have significant on-site subcontractor participation (thirty (30) percent or more in the performance of its on-site management and construction efforts) should provide information pertaining to those subcontractors in accordance with the instructions provided below.

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.

Relative importance of evaluation factors: The government will consider the following four non-pricing evaluation factors: experience, past performance, organizational management and execution plan, and key personnel. Each of the non-pricing evaluation factors is approximately equal in weight to one another in the selection process.

B. NON-PRICING (TECHNICAL) EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION PLAN

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

The offeror shall demonstrate recent and relevant experience on same or similar projects to that of the solicitation requirements, using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment B) and Experience Form (Attachment C).

Recent is defined as: Projects that are substantially complete (at least 80% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over within five (5) years of the solicitation closing date.

Relevant is defined as: Design-build construction projects performed in Central or Southwest Asia requiring vertical and horizontal construction of the following types of work: single and multiple-story facilities, perimeter walls, perimeter lighting, entry control points, guard towers, guard shacks, personal bunkers, barracks, dining facilities, latrines, laundry facilities, administrative buildings, classrooms, hangars, storage facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities, fuel storage and vehicle refueling points, medical clinics, fitness centers, electrical power generator and/or distribution, water supply/storage distribution, wastewater collection & treatment systems, wellhouses, storm sewer systems, roads, and parking structures.

Same or similar is defined as projects having the following:

Size: A project with a contract value of at least $1.5M. All submitted project experience must meet this requirement.

Scope: A project requiring a similar level of activities (labor, equipment, materials, management and supervision, etc.) in the design and construction of vertical and horizontal structures, as specified above.

Complexity: A project that demonstrates similarity in the interrelated work features required in the design and construction of vertical and horizontal structures, as specified above. Similarities in features include, but are not limited to: architectural, civil, electrical, mechanical, and structural design and construction project elements.

Offerors shall provide no more than three (3) projects that demonstrate the breadth and depth of an offeror’s recent and relevant experience on same or similar projects to that of the solicitation requirements. Any project(s) or a combination of projects must demonstrate that they are same or similar to the project described in the solicitation.

Offerors shall include within its submission, a description of its technical approach to the execution of the project. The government is not only interested in the types of work the offeror has accomplished, but how the offeror executed the project.

Greater weight consideration will be given to:

__Projects that were performed in Afghanistan.

__Offerors with three projects clearly illustrating self-performance in the design and construction of the submitted projects.

__If an offeror proposes as a joint venture, more weight will be given to the experience of a joint venture or partnership that has previous experience working together than to a newly formed joint venture with no such previous experience.

If the offeror is a joint venture (JV), each firm shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to the firm’s role on the project. Experience of one JV partner will be considered experience of the JV. If the offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project experience submitted to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Experience of divisions or units not performing on this contract will not be considered. The offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. As thirty percent (30%) of work associated with this project is required to be self-performed, the offeror should demonstrate prior self-performance experience by indicating, on at least one submitted project, all self-performed activities related to design and construction.

FACTOR 1 EXPERIENCE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

An offeror’s experience shall be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. 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 not awardable.

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

Past performance refers to the quality of recent and relevant project experience from a client’s perspective. The criteria of what is recent and relevant can be found in the experience evaluation factor. Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ – Attachment D) or DD Form 2626 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) for each project submitted under Factor 1. 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.

Performance recognition documents received within five (5) years of the solicitation closing date, such as awards, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition may be submitted in addition to the PPQs and performance evaluation forms. This information shall be limited to the projects submitted.

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. 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.

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) 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.

FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation which results in a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The first aspect is evaluating the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the solicitation’s effort. There are four levels of past performance relevancy ratings: very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant and not relevant.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts.

Past performance information will be reviewed and a determination made on its quality and usefulness as it applies to the 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 adjectival rating of unknown confidence (neutral) will be assigned to the evaluation factor of past performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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: ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION PLAN

The offeror shall provide a narrative to describe its plan for the management and execution of multiple task orders. The plan shall clearly describe the offeror’s organizational structure.

At a minimum, the offeror’s organizational management and execution plan shall address the following:

__The offeror’s design capabilities - whether it intends to self perform, team, or subcontract with a design firm. If the offeror is teaming with or subcontracting to a design firm, a copy of the offeror’s teaming agreement or an unequivocal subcontractor letter of commitment signed by the design firm must be submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

__The offeror’s construction capabilities - whether it intends to self perform, team, or subcontract with a construction firm. If the offeror is teaming with or subcontracting to a construction firm, a copy of the offeror’s teaming agreement or an unequivocal subcontractor letter of commitment signed by the construction firm must be submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

__ The intended roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s team members. The plan shall clearly depict the relationship between the offeror and any of its prime subcontractors and/or design teams. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction and those who will perform design. It shall also include the offeror’s planned integration of its team members into the quality control process.

__Explain the organizational structure and interaction of the on-site construction team and upper level management. Identify and explain the roles, responsibilities, and authority of each significant personnel.

__Explain the organizational structure and interaction of the on-site construction team and the design team during both the design and construction phases. Identify and explain the roles, responsibilities, and authority of each significant personnel.

__The offeror’s capability and plan for the concurrent construction of multiple projects across the different provinces of Afghanistan. Include the anticipated risks and mitigating actions associated with managing the design and construction of multiple projects concurrently.

__ Security requirements considered by the offeror and its intended approach to plan and perform security functions in the execution of task orders.

__The anticipated coordination with government ministries (e.g., Ministry of Defense (MoD), Ministry of Energy & Water (MEW), Ministry of Interior (MoI), etc.), district-level government officials, and local village elders.

The narrative shall be limited to ten (10) pages or less. Any information, however relevant to the technical factor, after the tenth page will not be read or considered for evaluation. Teaming agreements and subcontractor letters of commitment are not included in the page limitation.

FACTOR 3 ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION PLAN RATINGS AND

DEFINITIONS

The offeror’s organizational management and execution plan will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s management, design, and construction capabilities in the execution of multiple task orders. It will be evaluated to determine the extent of the offeror’s consideration of the inherent challenges that are specific to executing multiple concurrent projects across various provinces in Afghanistan.

An offeror’s organizational management and execution plan shall be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. 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 not awardable.

PHASE II INSTRUCTIONS

PHASE II – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following is a brief overview, for information only, of the proposed Phase II process. It will only be applicable to those offerors who will be selected to submit proposals in Phase II. Do not submit Phase II documentation during Phase I. All offerors selected to propose for Phase II will be evaluated on the evaluation factors outlined in the Phase II RFP. This overview is for informational purposes and is subject to change.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

The intent of Phase II is for the government to award a target of five (5) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to form the “MATOC pool” and to subsequently award the initial task…