A.07.24.01_W5J9JE18R0020_Amend_0001.pdf

W5J9JE18R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

AMENDMENT 0001

Afghanistan National Army (ANA) Kandahar Afghan Air Force (AAF) – Aviation Enhancement – LSA

Kandahar Province, Afghanistan

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES

A. TABLE OF CONTENTS / SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 6 – Resume of Key Personnel has been removed

B. Section 00 21 00 / Section F. DEFINITIONS has been added.

C. Section 00 21 00 / Factor 1: Specialized Experience / Evaluation Criteria The following statement is irrelevant and therefore is being removed "A proposal providing fewer than three (3) projects could receive the highest rating available, to the extent that the projects submitted are fully relevant projects.”

D. PHASE I / Factor 1, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES

The following bullet has been modified:

Offeror fails to submit projects within the relevant timeline (completed within the last six five years of the solicitation issue date or at least 80% complete by the proposal submission due date).

E. Provide a copy of ProjNet Bid Inquiry Report.

F. SPECIFICATION CHANGE

Revised Spec Section 01 10 00 – Summary of Work (SOW) included.

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00 00 00 Procurement and Contract Requirements SECTION 00 10 00 Solicitation Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule SECTION 00 21 00 Instructions - Submission Requirements SECTION 00 22 00 Supplementary Instructions - Evaluation Criteria SECTION 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications - Clauses SECTION 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract – Contract Clauses SECTION 00 71 00 Definitions SECTION 00 72 00 General Conditions - Special Contract Requirements SECTION 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions SECTION 01 11 00 Summary of Work SECTION 01 30 00 Contract Requirements

SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 Experience Overview Sheet ATTACHMENT 2 Experience Information Sheet ATTACHMENT 3 USACE Past Performance Questionnaire ATTACHMENT 4 Electronic Pricing Schedule EXCEL Format ATTACHMENT 5 Letter(s) of Commitment for Key Personnel ATTACHMENT 6 Resume of Key Personnel ATTACHMENT 7 Financial Discloure Statement ATTACHMENT 8 Corporate Certificate or Authority to Bind Agreement

The following KANDAHAR AFGHAN AIR FORCE (AAF) AVIATION ENHANCEMENT DESIGN/BUILD PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS are attached to and hereby incorporated by reference:

01 09 00 Project Phases and Schedule

01 10 00 Summary of Work 01 10 15 Technical Requirements 01 10 40 Security 01 10 41 Security Plan Format 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements 01 32 01.00 10 Project Schedule 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 01 33 16.00 10 Design Data 01 35 13 Special Project Requirements 01 35 26 Government Safety Requirements 01 42 00 Sources For Reference Publications 01 42 15 Metric Measurement 01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control 01 45 00.15 10 Resident Management System Contractor Mode 01 45 35 Special Inspections 01 50 00 Temporary Construction Facilities and Controls 01 57 20 Environmental Protection 01 58 00 Project Identification 01 78 00 Closeout Submittals

01 78 23 Operation and Maintenance Data

APPENDIX A CONCEPT DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B STANDARD DESIGN FACILITES

APPENDIX C STANDARD DESIGN FACILITIES TECHNICAL SPECS

APPENDIX D USACE CERTIFIED TESTING LABORATORIES

APPENDIX E DEMINING CERTIFICATES

APPENDIX F LIST OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX G STANDARD DESIGN FACILITIES REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS

APPENDIX H FFE PLANS AND CUT SHEETS

APPENDIX I SITE PHOTOS

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 21 00: INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

INTRODUCTION: The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via AMRDEC and through email to the Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist, and TAA-Contracting. The solicitation shall provide AMRDEC instructions, email addresses and receipt date for proposal submittal.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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 proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a. The proposal shall be typed and submitted in English and easy to read.

b. The proposal shall be organized, concise, and shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. The proposal shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

d. The proposal shall contain a table of contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

e. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s), for the three technical factors.

f. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

g. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

h. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

i. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer if instructions are not understood.

In addition to the Proposal Submission Requirements, Proposals shall meet the additional following basic requirements:

j. Volume I: Shall contain information related to the three non-price factors. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s), for each project.

k. Volume II: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs: The request for proposal (RFP) solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience and past performance of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The experience for each Joint Venture Partner should be clearly described.

The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects.

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding Joint Venture Agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any Offerors that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must 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 and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

a. A copy of their joint venture agreement in English.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

1) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing. The joint venture agreement must show that joint venture members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

2) The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the joint venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

3) The structure of the joint venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

4) The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

5) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

6) Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

7) Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

8) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture.

9) A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included. The JV agreement submitted to the Government shall be the only valid JV agreement for purposes of performance under this contract or any responsibilities of the JV under the contract. Any changes to the JV agreement must be submitted to the Contracting Officer and is subject to approval by the Government prior to execution of the change.

3. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience or past performance of a Key Subcontractor a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor AND the prime contractor shall be submitted. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to the prime contractor (for example, the Key Subcontractor is a subsidiary of the prime contractor, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the prime contractor is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Include this information as part of Volume I (See Attachment 5, Sample Letter of Commitment).

4. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

Volume 1:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Schedule

This volume shall also include the following:

Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment 1), Experience Information Sheet (Attachment 2), Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3), Letter(s) of Commitment (Attachment 5), Volume 2:

Factor 4 - Price

This volume shall also include the following:

Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable), Financial Disclosure Statement (Attachment 7) and Corporate Certificate or Authority to Bind Partnership Agreement (Attachment 8).

5. AMRDEC SAFE

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center Safe Access File Exchange

(AMRDEC SAFE)

Proposals shall be submitted utilizing the AMRDEC SAFE Application, https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe. The AMRDEC SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone.

a. The AMRDEC SAFE application can be accessed via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.

b. There are two options to proceed from the SAFE homepage:

o Proceed as Guest - Select this option if you do not have a CAC.

c. After selecting one of the options above, the page will be redirected to the package upload form. Fill in all the required input fields:

o Your Name - Your name;

o Your Email address - Your email address;

o Confirm Your Email Address - Re-enter your email address;

o Description of File(s) - Enter W5J9JE18R0020-COMPANY NAME:

o File(s) - Click the "Browse" button to select your file(s). You may add up to 25 files per package, so long as the total file size does not exceed 2GB;

File names shall be titled:

1. Volume 1: W5J9JE18R0020.Vol1-Company Name

2. Volume 2: W5J9JE18R0020.Vol2-Company Name o Deletion Date - Select the Maximum date for the package to be deleted from SAFE. The maximum (which is also the default) is two weeks (14 days) from today;

o Provide an email address to give access to nikisha.w.cook@usace.army.mil and erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil o Grant access to these people - This is the list of people you have granted access to the package. To remove a recipient, highlight their name and click the "Remove" button;

o Caveats - Default is "None";

o Encrypt email message when possible - Attempt to encrypt the package's notification email to each recipient;

o Notify me when files are downloaded - You (the sender) will receive a notification via email when a recipient downloads the package;

o Require CAC for pickup - Require the recipient to be logged in with a valid US DoD-issued CAC to download the file(s). Recipients without a CAC will not be able to download the package.

d. Clicking the "Submit" button will upload the files and submit the package. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

e. After the package has been uploaded (and verified, if proceeding as a guest), each recipient will receive a link to the package download page as well as a password. These passwords are unique for each recipient (not the package), and will be disabled once SAFE detects that the user successfully downloaded each file within the package. Forwarding recipient and sender notification emails to anyone except the AMRDEC WEB Team is strictly forbidden.

Proposal submission shall be submitted via AMRDEC by the date and time indicated on the SF 1442, or as amended. No facsimiles or regular e-mail submissions of proposals, with the exception of Attachment Three (3), Past Performance Questionnaires, are permitted:

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: nikisha.w.cook@usace.army.mil Telephone: 540-723-4949

E-mail: erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil Telephone: 540-722-4868

When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean USACE.

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.

6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Offeror should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation, nor add conditions or qualifications to his proposal based on an assumption or based on his own modification of the terms and/or conditions of the solicitation. Should the Offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that Offeror’s proposal may be determined to be ineligible for further evaluation or for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved with the Contracting Officer prior to proposal submission.

References in the Offeror’s proposal to, and examples of “classified” projects or contracts, should not be included in the Offeror’s proposal unless the information is authorized to be viewed or utilized by the Government for review and evaluation. Offerors who include information in their proposals that they do not want disclosed to the public or to anyone without a need-to-know, must clearly mark their proposals in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, paragraph (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data.

An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms, as discussions may not be conducted with the Offeror.

Electronic proposals submitted via email and AMRDEC are the required methods of proposal transmission and will be the only forms 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. Undeliverable emails due to an Offeror’s proposal size is not the responsibility of the Government.

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR

AWARD

The requirements for the preparation and submission of proposals and the requirements for the evaluation of proposals in response to this solicitation are contained in the solicitation. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the award will be made to one Offeror.

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of four (4) factors: Specialized Experience, Past Performance, Schedule, and Price.

The awarded contract will incorporate the successful offeror’s proposal to the extent it does not conflict with the solicitation requirements.

***********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 solicitation condition, 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.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Factor 1 – Specialized Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Schedule

Factor 4 - Price

In accordance with FAR 15.304(d), the Government has determined the following factors will affect contract award and therefore their relative importance is stated as such:

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price Factors 1-3 are equal to one another in importance. The non-priced factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are significantly more important than Price (Factor 4).

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

E. DISCUSSIONS

Offerors are reminded to include their best terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

1. GENERAL INFORMATION: The Government does not intend to hold discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

F. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating fromsources where the information is fromother than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or

“FAPPIS.”

PHASE I

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable; the end results are achievable and the offeror has demonstrated an ability to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements.

a. Factor 1 – Specialized Experience

FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements:

PAGE LIMITATIONS: Offerors are limited to 5 pages per project. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will not be evaluated by the Government. There is a limit of twenty-five (25) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equal two pages. If more than 25 pages are submitted, only the first 25 pages will be reviewed and evaluated.

For Factor 1- Specialized Experience, Offerors shall submit two attachments, Attachment 1, Experience Overview Sheet and Attachment 2, Experience Information Sheet detailing previous work experience projects meeting the requirements of this solicitation. There are no page limitations for Factor 1, Experience. However, offerors are cautioned to only submit information relevant to Factor 1, Experience.

1. Information for completing Attachment 1 and Attachment 2:

a. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment 1, with a total listing not-to-exceed five (5) projects that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation. Projects must be performed within the last five (5) years of the solicitation issue date or from the date or at least 80% complete by the proposal submission due date of this solicitation, If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated.

b. Offerors shall provide an Experience Information Sheet, Attachment 2, for each project listed on Attachment 1, Experience Overview Sheet. The experience Information sheets must be filled out completely.

3. If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the experience with those Key Subcontractors. If a Joint Venture, clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects.

Evaluation Criteria:

Specialized Experience will be rated as one factor; there are no sub-factors. The Government will evaluate the recency, depth, and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated to determine design-build experience of the Offeror for relevant contracts and/or projects of the similar scope and complexity of the project contained in the specifications. Offerors must demonstrate that the projects are same or similar to the project described in the solicitation. Offerors are encouraged to submit the maximum number of relevant projects to increase likelihood that the above requirements are met and elements warranting higher rating are included. A proposal providing fewer than three (3) projects could receive the highest rating available, to the extent that the projects submitted are fully relevant projects. Projects submitted that do not have the qualities considered most relevant may be considered but the offeror may receive a lower rating for this factor.

1. RECENCY: Projects considered recent shall be completed within the last five (5) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 80% complete by the proposal submission due date for this solicitation.

2. RELEVANT: Projects demonstrate examples of design and construction of infrastructure and facilities similar to those included in this solicitation’s scope of work.

Relevant Projects were performed within Afghanistan or a Middle Eastern country, were at least $15,000,000, and meet one or more of the following criteria:

a. Demolition and/or relocation of existing structures

b. Design and construction of a water distribution system and/or waste water collection system

c. Design and construction of a power generation facility

d. Construction of Barracks

e. Construction of a Dining Facility

f. Construction of Guard Tower(s)

g. Design Build Construction which included providing furniture and equipment

3. DEPTH: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s depth of experience in the following categories. Depth is demonstrated by providing a detailed explanation as to how the project meets the requirements of the category; how the project demonstrates experience performing construction activities anticipated under this solicitation and how many of the submitted projects meet each category (i.e. 3 of the 5 projects submitted demonstrate experience in design build construction of barracks, demolition of existing structures and a dining facility, etc.).

a. Demolition and/or relocation of existing structures

b. Design and construction of a water distribution system and/or waste water collection system

c. Design and construction of a power generation facility

d. Construction of Barracks

e. Construction of a Dining Facility

f. Construction of Guard Tower(s)

g. Design Build Construction which included providing furniture and equipment

FACTOR 1, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES:

Where Factor 1, Specialized Experience includes the following, the proposal may be rated higher (the following list is not all encompassing, in no order of importance):

Projects demonstrating experience working in Afghanistan.

Projects demonstrating experience in construction of barracks and/or construction of dining facilities Projects demonstrating experience working with the US Government.

Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously (as demonstrated by the project dates).

Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple trades (example: design-build construction of transmission lines and substations)

Where Factor 1, Specialized Experience includes the following, the proposal may be rated lower (the following list is not all encompassing):

Offeror fails to submit projects within the cost threshold Offeror fails to submit projects within the relevant timeline (completed within the last six five years of the solicitation issue date or at least 80% complete by the proposal submission due date).

Experience examples that are not verifiable.

Example projects where the offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project.

Projects which fail to explain the depth of experience for a category which in it was submitted.

Projects older than 5 years may be considered but will be considered less relevant.

Offeror fails to follow the page limitations.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 1: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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

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.

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

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

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.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3, included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Specialized Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Kisha Cook via email at nikisha.w.cook@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide a completed Department of Defense, DD2626 form or a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), in lieu of Attachment 3. CPARS evaluations and DD2626s shall be signed by all designated authorities for consideration of evaluation.

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, commercial and foreign government evaluations and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, JV, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee 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 past performance information rests with the Offeror and the government is under no obligation to check other sources.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance will be evaluated for projects completed in the last 6 years from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing (at least 80% complete).

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government.

The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a neutral rating.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

FACTOR 3: SCHEDULE

The offeror shall submitted a Preliminary Construction Schedule. The overall length of the project schedule must match the proposed project duration of 931 days as specified in the solicitation. The offeror should use an NTP date of 26 October 2018 for the start of the project in their Schedule. This NTP date may not turn out to be the actual NTP date for the resultant contract, but for purposes of proposal evaluation of this factor, it will be the NTP date of this project.

a. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved.

b. The summary schedule shall include details plans for mobilization and completing the project realistically within the time allowed.

c. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice. At a minimum identify preconstruction activities, mobilization, and all efforts indicated in the Proposal Price Breakout Schedule (Bidding Schedule).

d. Procurement of long lead items shall be included in the schedule.

e. Offerors shall give attention to the following feature and incorporate them into the activities while also considereing and “Constraints”:

i. Prime and Subcontractor Work

ii. Long Lead Items and Equipment

iii. Critical Milestones

iv. Shop Drawing Preparation

v. Construction Site Preparation

vi. Building Weathering/Closing

vii. Site Infrastructure Activities

viii. Show the overall construction phase for the site work and utilities

ix. Show turnover of the facilities. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time to complete turnover must consider the complete inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

x. Show As Built submission

f. Constraints: The Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the required contract completion period stated on the schedule.

Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

Key milestones, such as NTP receipt, mobilization, site work, submittal reviews, final inspection, BOD, etc. should be included in the schedule. General Notes and Assumptions, which contain information pertaining to potential schedule impact (for example, limited working hours during Afghan holidays, weather issues, procurement/delivery problems, etc.), should accompany the Project Schedule.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s schedule for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the solicitation requirements. In assessing reasonableness, the Government will take into account how well the proposed schedule supports the contract duration as compared with the solicitation requirements. When considering logic, the Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of events associated with the construction process and completion requirements. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government may use independent judgement concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. NOTE: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s schedule using days, not dates. If an offeror includes dates in the schedule, the dates will be used to calculate days and the dates will not be considered to create binding dates.

FACTOR 3, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES:

Where Factor 3, Schedule includes the following, the proposal may be rated higher (the following list is not all encompassing):

The schedule is complete, logical, reasonable, low risk and realistically provides a shorter duration for completion of the project.

The schedule is complete, logical, reasonable, low risk, realistic and provides valid assumptions for which the Government may not have considered.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probably of successful performance of the contract.

Where Factor 3, Schedule includes the following, the proposal may be rated lower (the following list is not all encompassing):

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: SCHEDULE are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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

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.

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

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

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.

FACTOR 4: PRICE

SUBMISSION CRITERIA:

The price proposal shall include the following:

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

Section 00 11 00, Completed Price Schedule (pricing information for all contract line items) Offerors must submit completed Price Schedule with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

An offeror should submit a complete CLIN Schedule and Cost Breakdown spreadsheet in an Excel format.

Failure by an offeror to do so may result in disqualification of the offeror’s proposal.

The Offeror shall submit Factor 4 Price in a separate file from the Volume I factors. Any supplemental cost/price breakdown information shall include labor, material, subcontractor and any other related costs of the project.

OFFERORS MUST SUBMIT THE EXCEL VERSION OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE IN ADDITION TO

THE PDF VERSION.

The Offeror must also provide the following information:

(a) An explanation of what activities make up the Offeror’s Mobilization and Demobilization costs.

(b) The Offeror’s estimated cost of Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance for this project.

(c) The Offeror’s proposed rates to be applied after contract award for contract modifications.

Evaluation Criteria:

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

COMPLETENESS - To be complete, the Offeror shall provide prices for all base and option CLINS. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

REASONABLENESS - Evaluation and analysis of the pricing will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the rates proposed by the Offeror are reasonable.

The Offeror's price proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1 which may include, but is not limited to, the following:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the

Government, for the same or similar items.

Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

Cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c) may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone.

UNBALANCED PRICING: Additionally, all separately priced line items will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)