W5J9JE-16-R-0069-0001_-_Provides_Revised_ProjNet_Key.pdf

W5J9JE-16-R-0069

ANP-16-003

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-0069 ENTITLED 'FEMALE POLICE TOWN PHASE I' Amendment 0001 The solicitation is amended as follow s:

1. Provide revised ProjNet Key Refer to amendment continuation page for further information

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Mar-2017

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-0069

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Mar-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

22-Mar-2017

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:

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT 0001 TO SOLICITATION W5J9JE-16-R-0069

ENTITLED ‘FEMALE POLICE TOWN PHASE I’ IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. CORRECT THE FOLLOWING IN SECTION 00 21 00 – SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Paragraph C.(5) ‘SOLICITATION INQUIRIES’ has been revised

From

5. The Inquiry Key is: XW5233-8Y22ST

To

5. The Inquiry Key is: Q6AVQN-KVE5B9

2. SUBMISSION DUE DATE FOR SOLICITATION W5J9JE-16-R-0069 ENTITLED

‘FEMALE POLICE TOWN PHASE I’ - REMAINS UNCHANGED AS THE

FOLLOWING:

19 April 2017 10:00 AM KABUL TIME

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO

OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

This solicitation is for a firm-fixed price contract to acquire construction services for the procurement, management, and construction efforts providing a complete and usable facilities consisting of Guard Towers (6), and three (3) five (5) story Family Housing Buildings. Facilities will consist of site development; refuse collection points, walls, fencing, and gates, and infrastructure consisting of parking, roadways, and walkways, and electrical infrastructure for the entire compound, and water infrastructure to as well as sanitary sewer collection system and septic tanks. The project will be constructed in accordance with construction standards for water distribution systems and safety standards as outlined in

EM 385-1-1.

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, award of a contract shall be made to the responsible offeror whose overall proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government. Pricing shall be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Non-pricing features of each proposal shall be evaluated against the solicitation requirements, assessing their strengths and significant strengths, weaknesses and significant weakness, as well as associated risks and deficiencies of each proposal in light of the non-pricing evaluation criteria that is also described herein. Non-pricing features of an offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated in such a manner as to assess the value of those features as compared to the proposed prices or costs to the Government. Implicit in this process is the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest priced offer if the added benefits of a higher priced offer outweigh the additional cost or price involved. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Magnitude of Construction: The estimated cost of this project is over $10 million.

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

B. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTENT, AND FORMAT

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 via email. It is the offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge any and all amendments in its proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal or add conditions or qualifications to their offers. Should an offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that offeror may be determined to be ineligible for award. 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 price 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 technical proposal. Offerors that include information in their proposals that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark their proposals in accordance with the instructions at FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data. 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, may result in the offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, or a deficiency or weakness being assessed for the factor. The Government may elect 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 or 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 the contract award. 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 may determine an offeror ineligible for award and removed from competition. A successful offeror with incomplete or expired registrations at the time of award may not be eligible for a contract. In such instances, the Government will award to the next successful offeror who is eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to determine an offeror non-responsible at any time after receipt of proposal if the offeror is found to be ineligible for installation access in accordance with CENTCOM Clause 5152.225-5916, Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access.

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. Still valid Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA) License will be accepted:

http://www.aisa.org.af/ or newly acquired Ministry of Commerce and Industries (MOCI) Entrepreneurial License http://moci.gov.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 and MOCI. The Government will not accept separate registrations and licenses for each separate entity representing the JV.

An offeror’s subcontractors are required to be registered and active in JCCS. In accordance with CENTCOM Clause 5152.225-5916, Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access, offerors are required to submit a listing of all proposed subcontractors, at all tiers, to the contracting officer with the submission of their proposal, and provide updates during the life of the contract when subcontractors are added or removed. If no subcontractors are expected to perform during the life of the contract, a bidder must submit a negative response to the contracting officer within its proposal. Subcontractors at every tier are held to the same installation access requirements, as noted above, as prime contractors.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be determined ineligible for award 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 technical proposal must be submitted within the technical proposal.

Do not cross-reference pricing information into the technical proposal or vice versa. Do not include references to material or information not found within its respective volumes. Information submitted in the wrong volumes could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

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 or MOCI License, JCCS ID

Number, and Tax ID (TIN)

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.

BID GUARANTEE: The bid guarantee required must be supported by a surety or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of thirty percent (30%) of proposed price but shall not exceed $3 million.

VOLUME I, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s technical proposal is described under Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors. Do not submit pricing information in the technical proposal.

i. Technical Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4: KEY PERSONNEL

VOLUME II, PRICE PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s price proposal is described under Evaluation Factors. Within an offeror’s price proposal, the following must be submitted:

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

ii. Completed SF 1442, Section 00 11 00 CLIN Schedule

iii. Completed Cost Breakdown spreadsheet in an Excel format. Ensure figures and totals match

Section 00 11 00 CLIN Schedule.

iv. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Attachment A)

If the offeror is a corporation, completed Corporate Certificate; OR If the offeror is a partnership, completed Authority to Bind Partnership and 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.

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

vi. Completed Financial Standing Questionnaire (Attachment B)

vii. Copy of valid AISA license or MOCI license

viii. Copy of Bid Guarantee in the amount of at least thirty percent (30%) of the proposed proposal amount, but shall not exceed $3 million.

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 will not be 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 that the English translation is true and correct.

b. An offeror’s proposal shall be in an Adobe portable document format (PDF) with the exception of the Cost Breakdown spreadsheet, which shall be in an Excel format. An offeror’s technical proposal and price proposal 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 their proposals: “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. DO NOT

DISCLOSE ANY SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON.”

e. Schedules – should be prepared using Primavera 6 and supplied in the .xer format.

4. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Electronic proposals submitted via AMRDEC at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/ 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 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:

Kimberly Robinson Nataniellle L. Little Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Office: (540)723-4884 Office: (540) 722-6078 Kimberly.M.Robinson@usace.army.mil Natanielle.L.Little@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 award is made, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and (1) if it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, and 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.

C. 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 ten (10) 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: Q6AVQN-KVE5B9

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 it 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 are then available for all other offerors to review.

D. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a delayed debriefing after award by submitting a written request to the contracting officer within three (3) days after receipt of the notice excluding the offeror from the competition and award. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. No debriefing will be provided for those offerors found non-responsible as a result of their base access ineligibility as the determination may be made in advance of the offeror’s technical proposal being reviewed.

E. BASIS OF AWARD

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one (1) offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR. In determining the most highly qualified offeror, the Government will evaluate proposals to determine the offeror who is responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1; who is 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 price and non-price factors the best value and is determined overall to be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate the experience and technical factors by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weakness, 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 strength in the proposal is defined as: 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 significant strength in the proposal is: an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

A weakness in the proposal is defined as: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A significant weakness in the proposal is: a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A deficiency in the proposal is defined as: 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 award a contract 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 and pricing standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the contracting officer to be necessary or if requested by the source selection authority (SSA).

F. EVALUATION FACTORS

All of the submission items to be evaluated pertain to the offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a joint venture.

Joint Ventures: A joint venture is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. 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.

Prospective Offerors that submit proposals may not change their joint venture firms, if selected for award.

Joint Ventures must be properly registered in the in accordance with the Required Registrations section as a Joint Venture.

Subcontractors: 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 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 or better 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: For evaluation purposes, the specialized experience and preliminary project schedule factors are more important than the past performance and key personnel. Specialized experience and preliminary project schedule are considered equal in importance for evaluation purposes. Non-pricing factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 3, and Factor 4 but is equally important as Factor 2.

FACTOR 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT

SCHEDULE

Factor 2 is equally as important as Factor 1 and more important than Factor 3, and Factor 4.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3 is less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2 and is equally as important as Factor 4.

FACTOR 4: KEY PERSONNEL Factor 4 is less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2 and is equally as important as Factor 3.

FACTOR 5: PRICE Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

NON-PRICING (TECHNICAL) EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4: KEY PERSONNEL

Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative that outlines how its experience on prior projects will positively impact its performance of the work contemplated by this solicitation. Specifically, the Offeror should explain how its prior experience handling those construction challenges that are frequently prevalent in Afghanistan will enable it to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

The Offeror’s narrative must discuss its experience in addressing the following challenges:

• Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

• Application of United States and foreign laws that affect contract performance.

• Procurement and shipping of long lead items.

• Obtaining access to work locations, such as obtaining base access.

• Coordination with host nation authorities during contract performance.

• Compliance with contractual, administrative, and other Combating Trafficking in Persons requirements.

Failure to address all of the above challenges may result in a deficiency or weakness being assessed for this factor.

The Offeror may also address its experience in areas other than the areas outlined above, so long as such experience demonstrates how the Offeror’s prior experience will enable it to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, in the construction environment of Afghanistan. As part of its narrative, the Offeror should address those process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address those construction challenges.

The Offeror may highlight any experience that it has gained, regardless of the date of the project on which this experience was gained or such project’s similarity to the scope, magnitude, or location of the work contemplated by this solicitation. For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the Offeror’s prior experience in dealing with construction challenges, and not on those project metrics required to conduct a past performance relevancy evaluation. A separate project relevancy analysis will be completed under the Past Performance factor.

If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror may provide experience on projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner.

For each project specifically identified in the Offeror’s narrative, the Offeror shall provide a completed “Attachment C” worksheet. All information items shown on Experience Form (Attachment C) must be provided. For JVs, a strength may be given where the JV partners were the same as the JV Offeror.

The prior experience narrative will be limited to five pages in length. Attachment C will not be included in the five page limitation. Any pages over the page limit will not be reviewed.

Proposal Evaluation Procedures:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative for the degree to which the Offeror possesses experience that will enable it to successfully perform the work contemplated by the solicitation.

The Government will not accept the experience of the Offeror’s subcontractor(s). All experience presented must be the Offeror’s.

The Government will evaluate the experience presented and its application to the work required by the solicitation, to determine whether the experience offered appreciably increases the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the work contemplated by the solicitation.

Adjectival 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.

The evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal for Specialized Experience will be evaluated in its entirety to result in an assignment of a single Technical Approach rating. The following ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

COLOR

RATING

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Risk is defined as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall provide a preliminary project schedule, in a Gantt chart format, that is task oriented and indicates the number of calendar days from notice to proceed (NTP) to when milestones are to be achieved. This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed schedule of meeting the period of performance of 810 calendar days from NTP, as identified in the solicitation.

Using an anticipated NTP date of 19 July 2017, the schedule must clearly identify the critical path and, at a minimum, the following:

__Pre-construction submittals __Mobilization __Permit activities, to include site/base access __Design submittal for approval __Procurement of long lead items __Start of construction __Site preparation __Construction phasing of each facility/site __Construction completion __Identify any proposed phased turnovers __Demobilization

The schedule shall clearly define start and end dates of events and any float time. A narrative description (limited to 10 pages) of each major activity milestones shall be included with the project schedule. Cost loading of activities is not to be shown in this schedule. The successful offeror’s preliminary project schedule may be incorporated into the resultant contract at the discretion of the contracting officer. The Government will not review any information provided after the 10th page.

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

The Offeror should format its proposed schedule as a time scaled network diagram Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule, in accordance with specification 01 32 17.00 20 NETWORK ANALYSIS

SCHEDULES.

The offeror should include with its proposed preliminary schedule an accompanying schedule narrative that demonstrate s the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. In its schedule narrative, the Offeror should explain the work milestone and in which the Offeror identifies and addresses constraints. The schedule narrative should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The Offeror’s narrative should also include, but not be limited to an explanation of (a) the Offeror’s plans to procure its construction material along with key long lead procurement items; (b) constraints on the schedule presented (such as if the Offeror plans to utilize multiple crews, or more than one shift, or work an extended workweek to meet the required construction completion date, weather, material availability, etc.); and (c) the integration of local labor and subcontractor firms. The schedule should be at a minimum in compliance with the stated Period of Performance. Offeror may submit a schedule that has a reduced period of performance than stated in the solicitation. This reduced period of performance may provide offeror a higher adjectival rating if deemed in conformance with solicitation requirements. The successful offeror’s preliminary project schedule showing a reduced period of performance shall be incorporated into the resultant contract.

Resource loading of activities is not permitted. After contract award, the awardee shall submit a Baseline Schedule in accordance with Specifications 01 32 17.00 20 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES.

Proposal Evaluation Procedures:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s preliminary project schedule and narrative for how well the Offeror satisfies the RFP requirements with regard to proposed activities. The evaluation will also consider how well the Offeror addresses constraints on the performance of the work. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed preliminary project schedule to determine the extent to which the Offeror satisfies the contract duration requirements as set forth in the RFP, and will consider the Offeror’s proposed activity durations, and logic sequence of the activities. The Government will also evaluate the offerors proposal to determine the extent to which construction phasing and logic demonstrate understanding of the project requirements. The Government will consider the extent to which the proposed preliminary project schedule is realistic and obtainable. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the critical path is clearly identified.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors whose schedules provide detail beyond identifying and including the major construction milestones and project elements, in the pre-NTP and construction. Examples of additional detail include identifying procurement activities, interim milestones; major and secondary features of work, etc.

RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

An offeror’s preliminary project schedule shall be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, 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.

RATING

ADJECTIVAL

requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Past Performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated relevant record of performance. There are two components of the past performance evaluation: Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance and Confidence Assessment of Relevant Past Performance.

The evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information as it pertains to the solicitation requirements. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recent, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance

The first aspect to the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the RFP.

The Government will consider the age and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. Past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

The Government’s assessment under the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance is a significant contributor to the final Past Performance rating; however, it is not a formal rating in and of itself. The resulting assessment conclusions for the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance will be considered for the purposes of assessing the quality of performance on prior contracts under the Confidence Assessment of Past Performance; evaluations under the Past Performance factor will result in the assignment of a single performance confidence rating for each offeror.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit relevant project experience using the Construction Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment E) and the Offeror should include a project description on the Construction Past Performance Information Sheet that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, and must state the specific type of work performed for each project listed. The Offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Construction Past Performance Information Sheet. If the Offeror is not able to provide English-speaking references, the Offeror must identify the language spoken for non-English-speaking references.

When submitting relevant past performance for consideration, the Offeror must submit at least one, but no more than three relevant projects. At least one project must have been performed by the offeror. . The Government will consider information provided in response to the past performance factor for the offeror’s primary subcontractors (those performing thirty (30%) percent or more of the total contract effort). The offeror may submit no more than two (2) projects demonstrating its primary subcontractor’s past performance.

Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

However, unless a letter of commitment is provided with the proposal, establishing the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor will be available for the project, then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the tradeoff evaluation and selection process.

If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror may count projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the Offeror. The Government will consider the relevant past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the relevant past performance information for the JV-Offeror, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the Offeror’s proposal describes the role of each JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the Offeror’s proposal clearly identifies the role of each JV partner on this project in such a way as to demonstrate that the partners’ previous past performance is relevant to the role each partner will be performing on this project.

Proposal Evaluation Procedures:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine the extent of the Offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to the project.

There are four levels of past performance relevancy ratings: very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant and not relevant.

RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “Relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope, and similar cost magnitude as required by the solicitation.

A “recently completed” project is defined as project which (1) has been completed within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 50% complete.

“Similar Scope” is defined as the construction of multiple story masonry apartment buildings. Other multiple story masonry buildings used for Government offices, schools, or universities are considered “similar” in nature.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined for the purposes of this evaluation as a project with a total value of at least $15 million.

For JVs, greater weight will be given for each relevant project where the JV partners were the same as the JV Offeror.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance. The evaluation team shall use the terms described in the table below in determining relevancy:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

Confidence Assessment of Past Performance

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how confident the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the RFP.

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.

The technical evaluation team will establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years of the solicitation closing date, such as awards, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition and performance evaluation forms. This information shall be limited to the projects submitted.

The Offeror may provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted under the Relevancy Assessment of Experience.

Proposal Evaluation Procedures:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to the project, based on the past performance information relied upon. Documented results PPIRS, CCASS, CPAR reports, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. For this evaluation, the information gathered that pertains to relevant project experience, as defined in the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance of this factor, will be considered in the confidence assessment for the purposes of assigning a rating under Factor 3 – Past Performance.

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.

FALISIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF

OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL

OF THE OFFEROR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the offeror.

In its confidence assessment, the Government may contact and interview the references included in the Construction Past Performance Information Sheets submitted under the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance.