W5J9JE23R0004-0005 (2).pdf

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

The purpose for amendment 0005 is as follow s:

1. Remove Yvette Walker as the Contracting Officer.

2. Appoint Betty Foster as the Contracting Off icer.

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-May-2023

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 W5J9JE23R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Mar-2023

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

09-May-2023

CODE

USACE TRANSATLANTIC AFGHANISTAN DISTRICT

CETAA-CT, USACE TAA HQ BAF, BAGRAM

APO AE 09354

W5J9JE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W5J9JE23R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 20-SEP-2023 TO

19-SEP-2024

N/A USACE TAE

YVETTE WALKER

CAMP ARIFJAN

COE T340

APO AE 09366

FOB: Destination

W5J9JE

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 20-SEP-2023 TO

19-SEP-2024

N/A USACE TAE

BETTY A FOSTER

CAMP ARIFJAN

COE T340

APO AE 09366

FOB: Destination

W5J9JE

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been added by full text:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PHASE I - Section 00 21 16 - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

This solicitation pertains to a firm-fixed-price (FFP), contract for construction services in Kuwait using a two-phase design-build procurement process. USACE, Transatlantic Expeditionary District (TAE), has a requirement to support the US Army Central Command (ARCENT) Area Support Group – Kuwait (ASG-KU) mission to provide infrastructure support for military installations in Kuwait. Projects range from $250,000 to $10 Million, on US and Kuwaiti installations, and of differing complexity and funding sources. The contractor may be required to respond to multiple requests for work for concurrent efforts within Kuwait, primarily Camp Arifjan, Camp Buehring, and Ali Al Saleem. The frequency, volume, and visibility of these projects will vary with changes to the political situation domestically and in-theatre, funding requirements and statutes, or changes to the strategic mission requiring different kinds of structures. ARCENT projects range from Government provided Design-Bid-Build (DBB) to those Design-Build (DB) requiring the contractor to fill in the gaps.

Qualification proposals are requested under Phase I. Following the evaluation of Phase I proposals, the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase II proposals. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase II, from which it anticipates awarding a target of three

(3) firm-fixed-price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Mutlitple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs). Offerors are notified that the Phase II information in this solicitation is currently provided for information only of the proposed Phase II process. It will only be applicable to those offerors who will be selected to submit proposals in Phase II. Do not submit Phase II documentation during Phase I. Offerors selected to propose for Phase II will be evaluated on the evaluation factors outlined in the Phase II solicitation (to be issued by an amendment). The Phase II overview is for informational purposes and is subject to change. The seed project its applicable technical specifications and drawings will be provided during Phase II to the offerors selected to propose for Phase II.

Magnitude of Construction: The estimated price range of this construction project is between $25 Million and $100 Million.

The Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) with a small business size of $45 Million. Product Service Code is Y1JZ - Construction of Miscellaneous Buildings.

REGISTRATION / SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Failure to have an active and completed registration in any one of the following databases at the time of award may deem the offeror “nonresponsible” in accordance with FAR Part 9 and ineligible for award. 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): https://sam.gov

Unless an exemption applies, Government contractors must be registered in the SAM and complete required representations and certifications annually. FAR 52.204-7 requires offerors to be registered in SAM at the time of bid and to continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment.

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

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 and JCCS. The Government will not accept separate registrations and licenses for each separate entity representing the JV.

B. ACQUISITION SPECIFICS

Performance Period: One (1) 12-month base plus four (4) 12-month option years.

Maximum Contract Value: $45,000,000 over the life of the MATOC.

Minimum Guarantee: The minimum guaranteed amount is $10,000 for each IDIQ base award.

Task Order Limitations: Competitively awarded task orders estimated from a minimum of $250,000 to a maximum of $10,000,000.

Number of Awards: The Government intends to advance a target of three (3) to five (5) offerors from Phase I to Phase II, from which it anticipates awarding a target of three (3) IDIQ contracts to form the “MATOC pool”. However, the Government reserves the right to advance offerors (not to exceed 5) and award to more (not to exceed 5), less, or none from both phases. More or fewer offerors may remain in the pool through “on-ramping” and “off-ramping” procedures. The need for additional MATOC awardees is dependent upon various factors, to include a lack of adequate task order competition, original awardees exiting the pool, the need to enhance the pool of expertise for new task orders, or other causes that determine an open season is in the best interest of the Government.

Currency: All task orders will be awarded, invoiced, and paid in US Dollars

This MATOC will be used to award task orders for design-build and design-bid-build construction projects in Kuwait by USACE TAE, and USACE districts across the enterprise.

C. COPIES OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

Copies of the solicitation and any amendments will be available on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) To access the solicitation in PIEE, the link is:

https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/search/oppMgmtLink.xhtml?solNo=W5J9JE23R0004

Access the following link for guidance on the PIEE Solicitation Module Instructions:

https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2023- 02/Vendor%20Solicitation%20Module%20Instructions.pdf. The solicitation is unrestricted so any potential offerors may pull this information with the link provided on SAM.gov. The offeror shall submit in its proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

D. OFFEROR’S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet. Inquiries regarding the solicitation shall be submitted as follows:

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

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

b) Offerors will receive an answer to their question(s) after it has been processed by our technical team via periodic modifications announcing all inquiries and answers received up to that point. Offerors may view all bidder inquiries through ProjNet.

c) Inquiries may be submitted up to ten (10) days prior to the proposal due date to allow time for analysis and response. The Government will not be required to respond to inquiries submitted after this date though it may choose to do so if in the interest of achieving the best value.

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

The Bidder Inquiry Key for Phase I: B8B472-4SMZY9

3. Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

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

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

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

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

f) Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret

Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The POC’s for this solicitation are as follows:

Contract Specialist – Dawn Barnett U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic Expeditionary District (TAE) Email: dawn.s.barnett@usace.army.mil

Contracting Officer – Betty Foster U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic Expeditionary District (TAE) Email: betty.a.foster@usace.army.mil

Note: All questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Specialist via ProjNet-® no later than ten (10) calendar days before proposal due date, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers.

E. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT, AND FORMAT

The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any responses to this solicitation. Any oral explanations or instructions to offerors if made, 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. The solicitation and any amendments to the solicitation will be issued electronically via public announcement on the SAM website. It is each offeror’s responsibility to acknowledge any amendments in its proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the non-price (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.

The offeror should resolve any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation prior to submission of their offer.

References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of an offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include information in their proposals they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall 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. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement at the time and date for submission of proposals, shall result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, unless the Government determines to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offeror(s) involved could be made.

Failure to comply with requirements annotated with the words “should” or “may” could result in an unacceptable rating 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.

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. A proposal without the minimum content may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of an offeror.

All information that the offeror intends to be evaluated as part of the non-price (technical) proposal shall be submitted with the non-price proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within the technical proposal. Referencing information not found within the qualification proposal could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

F. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE / SITE VISIT

A pre-proposal conference / site visit is not anticipated Phase I. If a pre-proposal conference / site visit is scheduled for Phase II, the information will be provided in the Phase II solicitation amendment.

G. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals than English will be considered unacceptable. Letters, licenses, agreements, if not written in English, must be accompanied by an English translated copy with a signed statement, in English, by an authorized representative who can bind each partner that the English translation is true and correct.

An offeror’s proposal must be submitted as separate PDF file formats (or Excel as applicable): Volume I – Non- Price (Technical) proposal during Phase I, Volume II – Price during Phase II, and Volume III – Seed Project during Phase II. Each volume must include the content and adhere to the format discussed above.

A 50-page limit applies to Volume I; a 50-page limit applies to Volume III; there is no page limit for Volume II.

Pages furnished for organizational purposes only such as a cover page, tabs, separator pages, or a table of contents are not included in the page limitation. Corporate certificates, joint venture agreements, and Letters of Commitment are also not included in page limitations.

Proposals shall be sized to print on 8 1/2” x 11” paper, that is A4; the equivalent to 11” X 17” for drawings, that is A3. Font size shall be no smaller than 10-point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side.

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. A proposal without the minimum content may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of an offeror.

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

Pricing information is not required and shall not be submitted in Phase I. Therefore, a bid bond / bid guarantee is not required during Phase I, but will be required during Phase II.

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

(1) Solicitation Number/Phase I

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

(3) Offeror’s SAM Unique Entity Identifier, if applicable.

(4) Offeror’s JCCS ID

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

c. VOLUME I QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s technical proposal is described in Section 00 21 16 (Phase 1). Do not submit pricing information with the technical proposal.

FACTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Phase I Factors

Factor 1 Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab A Specialized Experience

Factor 2 Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab B Past Performance

Factor 3 Phase 1, Volume 1, Tab C Key Personnel

Subcontractor Letters of Commitment, where applicable.

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

Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00 45 00).

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 required attachment, or to fill out attachments complete and properly, may result in determination that the proposal is unacceptable. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquires if instructions are not understood.

Offerors shall include 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.” Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror should limit the proposal to the required information sufficient to provide the Government an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of their proposal.

H. PROPOLSAL SUBMITTALS

Proposals shall be submitted via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) https://piee.eb.mil/.

The Arabian Standard Time zone (UTC +3) will be used for the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received "late" in accordance with FAR 15.208. The solicitation is unrestricted so any potential offerors may pull this information with the link provided on SAM.gov. The offeror shall submit in its proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

Phase I proposals are due no later than 27 April 2023 by 12:01 PM Arabian Standard Time. Proposals received after this date and time will not be accepted. Facsimile proposals are not permitted. It is an offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the Government system by the date and time of the proposal deadline.

Undeliverable messages due to an offeror’s proposal size or IT issues are not the responsibility of the Government.

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 proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition; and

1) if it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 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 proposals and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals; or

3) it was 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.

I. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

When proposing as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442 unless a written agreement by the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. In addition, a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

J. DEFINITIONS

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

The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

OUTSTANDING Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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 Rating Method

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Performance Risk Factor Rating Definitions. The relevancy rating will assist the SSEB in determining the confidence rating for Past Performance. A relevancy rating of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant (each defined below) will be assigned to each offeror’s past performance submission.

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.

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

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required.

Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the offeror to revise their proposal but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes, and information relating to relevant past performance).

9. Clarifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., relevance of past performance information, and adverse past performance) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

PHASE I - Section 00 22 16 - Evaluation Factors for Award

A. OVERVIEW

This procurement is being conducted using formal source selection procedures. The Government intends to advance three (3) to five (5) offerors from Phase I to Phase II, from which it anticipates awarding a target of three (3) IDIQ contracts to form the “MATOC pool”. However, the government reserves the right to advance offerors (not to exceed 5) and award to more (not to exceed 5), less, or none from both phases.

One solicitation will be issued to cover both phases. Phase I is the pre‐selection qualification phase and does not include the submission of price proposals. The qualification proposals will be evaluated against the following non-price factors: Specialized Experience, Management and Execution Plan and Past Performance. Phase I proposals will be evaluated using the process in FAR 36.3 to determine which offerors will be requested to submit proposals for Phase II. Upon completion of the Phase I evaluations, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will advance the most highly qualified offerors (not to exceed 5) from Phase I to Phase II. An amendment to the solicitation will be issued to those offerors who will be invited to submit Phase II proposals. Phase I evaluations will not be utilized in the Phase II evaluations.

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

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

All submission items to be evaluated pertain to the prime offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a joint venture. The government will consider information provided concerning principal or primary subcontractors;

however, unless a letter of commitment is provided establishing the likelihood that those subcontractors will actually be available for task order execution, then that submitted information will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process.

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

Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits indicated in Phase I Section 00 21 16 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and/or evaluation factors below. Phase I does not involve pricing submission.

C. ATTACHMENTS

The following attachments are applicable to Phase I of the solicitation:

Attachment A (Amdt 0001) – Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment B (Amdt 0001) – Experience Overview Attachment C (Amdt 0001) – Experience Information

D. PHASE I PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

There will be an evaluation of the performance capability proposals for conformance with the minimum Phase I RFP criteria and the extent to which the proposals exceed those criteria. While there is an implicit intent to keep an offeror’s proposal effort to a minimum, proposals must provide adequate detail for evaluators to determine how the offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the evaluation criteria. All proposals will be evaluated by the SSEB. The overarching evaluation approach for Phase I is as follows:

i. 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.

There will be an evaluation of all proposals by a Technical Evaluation Team to provide a fair, unbiased technical rating for each proposal based solely on the merits of the proposal. Proposals that do not conform to the terms and conditions contained in the solicitation will be eliminated from the competition and will not be eligible to proceed to Phase II.

The offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to the evaluation factors, and shall be in the format prescribed herein, as well as in Section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Offerors.

PHASE I FACTORS

FACTOR

RELATIVE ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE DESCRIPTION

Phase I Factors

Factor 1 More important than Factors 2 or 3 Specialized Experience

Factor 2 Less important than Factor 1, Equal in importance to Factor 3 Past Performance

Factor 3 Less important than Factor 1, Equal in importance to Factor 2 Key Personnel

To receive consideration for Phase II, an offeror must have an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Factors 1 – 3.

FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements:

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

Information for completing Attachment B and Attachment C:

i. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment B) 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 six (6) years of the solicitation issue date or from the date or at least 80% complete by the Phase I proposal submission due date of this solicitation, If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated.

ii. Offerors shall provide an Experience Information Sheet (Attachment C) for each project listed on the Experience

Overview Sheet (Attachment B). The Experience Information sheets must be filled out completely.

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. The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity or the Prime and Key subcontractor working successfully together on relevant 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.

RECENCY: Projects considered recent shall be completed within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 80% complete by the Phase I proposal submission due date for this solicitation.

RELEVANCY: Projects demonstrate examples of design and construction of infrastructure and facilities similar to those to be performed under this solicitation. Relevant Projects are/were projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:

Projects with a cost of $250,000 or higher.

Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build construction of new buildings;

Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build construction of barracks Design Build or Design-Bid-Build construction of dining facilities New Installation or replacement of building systems such as electrical, mechanical, HVAC;

Design Build or Design-Bid-Build construction of sanitary collection systems; water distribution systems; and/or electrical distribution systems

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 and how the project demonstrates experience performing construction activities anticipated under this solicitation.

Factor 1 Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies:

Where 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 with USACE or the U.S. Government.

Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously (as demonstrated by the project dates) Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV

Partners working together.

Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build construction of barracks Design Build or Design-Bid-Build construction that included Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E)

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

Offeror fails to submit at least one (1) project demonstrating experience in Design-build construction.

Offeror fails to submit projects valued at $250,000 or greater.

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

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

Projects older than 6 years may be considered but will be considered less relevant.

The adjectival ratings for Factor 1 – Specialized Experience are listed and defined below:

OUTSTANDING Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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

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

Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an

To receive consideration for Phase II, an offeror must have an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Factor 1.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment A, 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 A), 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, Contract Specialist Dawn Barnette via email at dawn.s.barnett@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 are encouraged to provide a completed Department of Defense, DD2626 form or a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), in lieu of Attachment A. CPARS evaluations and DD2626s shall be signed by all designated authorities for consideration of evaluation and are preferred to questionnaires.

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.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 – Specialized 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 by the solicitation Phase I proposal submission due date).

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 - Specialized 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.

The past performance evaluation considers three aspects (recency, relevancy, and quality). The evaluation results in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror. This is the only formal “rating” applied to this factor.

a. Recency: The first aspect considered is the recency of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will evaluate whether each of the offeror’s submitted projects is “recently completed,” as that term is defined above. More recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence assessment. Further, whether a project is “recent” will be considered in determining the project’s relevance.

b. Relevance: The second aspect considered is the…