A.02.01_W911KB-16-R-0018.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W911KB-16-R-0018 22-Jan-2016

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

907-753-2817

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

10:00 AM 23 Feb 2016

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W911KB9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

RYAN B ZACHRY MAJ

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED ORX

SMALL BUSINESS

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESS (WOSB)

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

(EDWOSB)

SIZE STANDARD:

NAICS:

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT 41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 3,000,000 Dollars, U.S.

QA Services Bangladesh (Base Period)

FFP

One (1) Indefinite Delivery - Indefinite Quantity Firm Fixed Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance (QA) services at various Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in the country of Bangladesh.

Contract Term: The contract type shall be indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, firm-fixed price contract with a term of a three year base period not to exceed three

(3) million dollars (starting from date of contract award); with two (2) one (1) year option periods not to exceed one (1) million dollars per year for a total of a five (5) years not to exceed five (5) million dollars.

The Government will advise the contractor of its intent to extend the contract for the optional term at least 30 days before the base period expires. The Government will exercise an optional term by sending the contractor a contract modification at least 15 days before the period expires. The total duration of the contract shall not exceed 5 years (except the performance period of Task Orders shall continue until completed).

QA duties for each task order will cease upon the Project dedication and completion of the Final Inspection "Punch List" by the construction contractor.

*All responders are advised that sites are subject to change and this contract may be revised or canceled at any time during solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation, and final award. It is the Governments intention to award one (1) Firm Fix Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance Services – Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in Bangladesh FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1,000,000 Dollars, OPTION QA Services Bangladesh (Option Year 1)

One (1) Indefinite Delivery - Indefinite Quantity Firm Fixed Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance (QA) services at various Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in the country of Bangladesh.

Contract Term: The contract type shall be indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, firm-fixed price contract with a term of a three year base period not to exceed three

(3) million dollars (starting from date of contract award); with two (2) one (1) year option periods not to exceed one (1) million dollars per year for a total of a five (5) years not to exceed five (5) million dollars.

The Government will advise the contractor of its intent to extend the contract for the optional term at least 30 days before the base period expires. The Government will exercise an optional term by sending the contractor a contract modification at least 15 days before the period expires. The total duration of the contract shall not exceed 5 years (except the performance period of Task Orders shall continue until completed).

QA duties for each task order will cease upon the Project dedication and completion of the Final Inspection "Punch List" by the construction contractor.

*All responders are advised that sites are subject to change and this contract may be revised or canceled at any time during solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation, and final award. It is the Governments intention to award one (1) Firm Fix Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance Services – Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in Bangladesh.

0003 1,000,000 Dollars, OPTION QA Services Bangladesh (Option Year 2)

One (1) Indefinite Delivery - Indefinite Quantity Firm Fixed Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance (QA) services at various Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in the country of Bangladesh.

Contract Term: The contract type shall be indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, firm-fixed price contract with a term of a three year base period not to exceed three

(3) million dollars (starting from date of contract award); with two (2) one (1) year option periods not to exceed one (1) million dollars per year for a total of a five (5) years not to exceed five (5) million dollars.

The Government will advise the contractor of its intent to extend the contract for the optional term at least 30 days before the base period expires. The Government will exercise an optional term by sending the contractor a contract modification at least 15 days before the period expires. The total duration of the contract shall not exceed 5 years (except the performance period of Task Orders shall continue until completed).

QA duties for each task order will cease upon the Project dedication and completion of the Final Inspection "Punch List" by the construction contractor.

*All responders are advised that sites are subject to change and this contract may be revised or canceled at any time during solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation, and final award. It is the Governments intention to award one (1) Firm Fix Price contract to fulfill the required Quality Assurance Services – Humanitarian Assistance Construction Projects in Bangladesh.

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 N/A N/A N/A Government 0002 N/A N/A N/A Government 0003 N/A N/A N/A Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 POP 01-APR-2016 TO

31-MAR-2019

N/A N/A

0002 POP 01-APR-2019 TO

31-MAR-2020

0003 POP 01-APR-2020 TO

31-MAR-2021

EVAL AND SELECTION CRITERIA

EVAL AND SELECTION CRITERIA

EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Quality Assurance & Inspection Support Services Humanitarian Assistance Projects – Bangladesh

Submitted proposals will be evaluated according to the “best value” criteria listed in this document, utilizing trade off procedures. Award will be made based on the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government; price and other factors considered. *It is noted that the Government intends to award one contract for the required Quality Assurance & Inspection Services (QA) at various Humanitarian Assistance project sites in Bangladesh. The following factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1: Management Approach

Sub-factor 1: Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel Sub-factor 2: Site-Specific Management Approach Sub-factor 3: Overall Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Relative importance of overall evaluation factors

The government considers factor 1 (Management Approach) and factor 2 (Past Performance) to be of equal importance. Factors 1 and 2, when combined are of equal importance to factor 3 (Price).

The contract will be awarded to the offering firm whose proposal provides the Best Value to the Government. Each contractor’s proposal will be evaluated by a technical team based on the technical evaluation criteria listed below as well as the price proposal.

Submit your proposal packages via email to LTC Ryan Zachry at ctha.asia@usace.army.mil. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of Standard Form 1449.

mailto:ctha.asia@usace.army.mil.

At a minimum, the proposal shall contain the sections listed below. If a proposal does not contain the minimum submission requirements below, then the proposal will be considered incomplete and will not be evaluated.

Volume I

1) A signed Standard Form 1449, (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items);

2) Proof of current registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/

3) Technical Capability Information

4) Past Performance Information

Volume II

5) Pricing

Proposal must use the bid sheet provided for Volume II. Price proposals must include the labor rates for option years to be considered complete.

1.1 Proposal Evaluation and Submission

The contract will be awarded to the offering firm whose proposal provides the best value to the Government. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by a technical team based on the evaluation criteria listed above. The total proposal page count shall not exceed 30 pages, excluding the price proposal. Minimum font size for proposals is 12 point.

Proposals shall be submitted in two separate volumes. Volume I contains technical information (including past performance information) and Volume II contains pricing information. Only email submissions will be accepted. It is the contractor’s responsibility to confirm receipt of the email and correct proposal attachments.

Definitions:

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.

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

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

Strength: Means an aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.

Uncertainty: 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.

Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

1.2 Technical Evaluation Factors (Volume I):

The Technical Volume will be separated into two (2) attachments that will provide information to support evaluation of technical factors. Evaluators will consider the two factors, Management Approach and Past Performance during the evaluation of proposals. The evaluation team is looking for a package that will provide an acceptable approach to Quality Assurance Engineer & Inspection Support services while minimizing cost to the Government.

Technical Volumes will contain the following attachments. A summary of the factors are provided beneath each section.

Attachment A - Management Approach (Factor 1) Offerors shall provide a written narrative of the management approach to quality assurance. Factor 1, Management Approach consists of three sub-factors (Experience and Qualifications of Personnel, Site Specific Management Approach to Quality Assurance, and Overall Management Approach). Offerors shall address the following management aspects in each of the subfactors below:

1) Experience and Qualifications of Personnel: Offerors shall provide a written summary of personnel experience and qualifications. The summary shall address overall personnel experience and qualifications to include communication with Bangladesh Design-Build Contractors, Local Partners, US Embassy personnel, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Resume’s (or CV – Curriculum Vitae) of key personnel shall be provided. T h e C V s f o r k e y p e r s o n n e l w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d f o r w h e t h e r t h e y p o s s e s s a n a c a d e m i c d e g r e e o f a t l e a s t a b a c h e l o r l e v e l f r o m a n a c c r e d i t e d i n s t i t u t i o n c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p o s i t i o n t h e y f i l l . The resumes shall discuss personnel ability to execute a variety of required QA services to include safety, quality, schedule, engineering review, reporting, the preparation of plans, ability to speak English and Bangladesh, and overall construction management ability. Offerors shall provide a summary of how the company meets the business licensing requirements in Bangladesh. Offerors shall demonstrate that their personnel meet the associated licensing requirements in Bangladesh.

2) Site Specific Management Approach to Quality Assurance: Offerors shall explain their management philosophy and overall management approach in terms of reviewing submittals, reviewing designs, coordinating site activities, achieving site safety, quality, and schedule control at the project site. This section shall include a written narrative explaining the overall philosophy and approach and shall include an organizational chart (or organogram) that contains the key personnel identified in Part 1 (Experience and Qualifications of Personnel). The Offeror shall address how they intend to manage the site in a cost effective manner.

3) Overall Management Approach: Offerors shall discuss their approach to managing multiple projects at the same time. Although key personnel do not need to be identified, the Offeror shall provide an organizational chart (or organogram) showing how they would propose managing these additional sites. The Offeror shall address how they intend to manage cost effectively.

Management Approach (Factors):

Sub-factor 1: Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel

• Does the Offeror provide a summary of personnel experience and qualifications as it relates to providing QA services for construction projects in Bangladesh?

• Does the Offeror provide resume’s of key personnel identified to work on the QA Support services contract?

• Do the Offeror’s key personnel possess the qualifications needed in the country where QA

Support services are required, and do they possess at least a bachelors degree in a closely related field to the work they must perform?

• Do the Offeror’s key personnel have experience providing quality assurance services in support of construction projects within Bangladesh?

• Do the Offeror’s key personnel have experience working within the country or region where the projects will be implemented and do they have experience dealing with host nation building standards and requirements, to include safety?

• Does the Offeror have personnel that can communicate well in both English and Bangladesh?

• Do the Offeror’s key personnel have experience preparing plans and reviewing designs, construction plans and other submittals identified in the scope of work?

• Does the offeror address the licensing requirements and their ability to meet the requirements within Bangladesh?

Sub-factor 2: Site-Specific Management Approach

• Does the Offeror provide an organized and reasonable approach to quality assurance support at the project site?

• Does the Offeror’s proposal demonstrate an overall understanding of quality assurance requirements by discussing the applicable phases and types of work to include work plan reviews, submittal review, report preparation, material receipt and inspection, invoice review, final inspection, and closeout?

• Does the Offeror demonstrate an understanding of cost effective approaches to management?

• Does the Offeror’s organizational structure for the project site include clear lines of authority, an appropriate number or personnel and personnel skill sets to meet requirements of the scope?

Sub-factor 3: Overall Management Approach

• Does the Offeror provide a well organized and reasonable approach to quality assurance support when managing multiple projects?

• Does the Offeror’s proposal demonstrate an overall understanding of quality assurance requirements as they relate to managing multiple projects throughout Bangladesh.

• Does the Offeror’s organizational structure for managing multiple sites include clear lines of authority, an appropriate number or personnel and personnel skill sets to meet requirements of the scope where multiple project sites require QA support.

• Does the Offeror include discussion of cost effective management of multiple sites.

– Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel The following criteria shall be used for the factor Technical Management Approach, Sub-factor Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel:

Unsatisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal does not include a summary of experience and qualifications for any of the key personnel. The proposal does not contain resumes (of CVs) of any key personnel. The Offeror’s personnel shows little or no relevant experience related to review designs and quality assurance support. Personnel have little or no clear qualifications as it relates to the SOW requirements. Near certain risk of failure.

Marginal. The Offeror’s proposal includes a summary of experience and qualifications for some of the key personnel. The proposal contains resumes (of CVs) of some personnel but not all. The Offeror’s personnel show some relevant experience related to review designs and quality assurance support.

Personnel have some qualifications as it relates to the SOW requirements. High risk of failure as presented but significant weaknesses may be correctable through discussion.

Satisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal includes a summary of experience and qualifications for all of the key personnel. The proposal contains resumes (of CVs) of all personnel. The Offeror’s personnel show good relevant experience related to review designs and quality assurance support. Personnel have good qualifications as it relates to the SOW requirements. Probable chance of success. Weaknesses are offset by strengths.

Very Good. The Offeror’s proposal includes a summary of experience and qualifications for all of the key personnel. The proposal contains resumes (of CVs) of all personnel. The Offeror’s personnel show very good relevant experience related to review designs and quality assurance support. Personnel have very good qualifications as it relates to the SOW requirements. Success is highly probable. Any weaknesses are insignificant and offset by strengths.

Exceptional. The Offeror’s proposal includes a summary of experience and qualifications for all of the key personnel. The proposal contains resumes (of CVs) of all personnel. The Offeror’s personnel show exceptional relevant experience related to review designs and quality assurance support. Personnel have exceptional qualifications as it relates to the SOW requirements. Success is highly probably. No significant weakness and many strengths.

– Site Specific Management The following criteria shall be used for the factor Technical Management Approach, Sub-factor Site Specific Management.

Unsatisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal does not include a narrative summary of their approach to quality assurance support at the project site. There is little or no demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements. The Offeror provides little or no organizational structure (organogram). Little or no key personnel are included in the Organogram. Near certain risk of failure.

Marginal. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to quality assurance support at the project site. There is some demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). Some key personnel are included in the Organogram. High risk of failure as presented but significant weaknesses may be correctable through discussion.

Satisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to quality assurance support at the project site. There is a good demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). All key personnel are included in the Organogram. Probable chance of success. Weaknesses are offset by strengths.

Very Good. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to quality assurance support at the project site. There is a very good demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). All key personnel are included in the Organogram. Success is highly probable. Any weaknesses are insignificant and offset by strengths.

Exceptional. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to quality assurance support at the project site. There is an exceptional demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). All key personnel are included in the Organogram. Success is highly probably. No significant weakness and many strengths.

– Overall Management The following criteria shall be used for the factor Technical Management Approach, Sub-factor Overall Management:

Unsatisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal does not include a narrative summary of their approach to Overall quality assurance support. There is little or no demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements across multiple sites in Bangladesh. The Offeror provides little or no organizational structure (organogram). Little or no discussion of how the Offeror intends to ensure cost effective management across multiple sites. Near certain risk of failure.

Marginal. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to Overall quality assurance support. There is some demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements across multiple sites in Bangladesh. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). Some discussion of how the Offeror intends to ensure cost effective management across multiple sites. High risk of failure as presented but significant weaknesses may be correctable through discussion.

Satisfactory. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to Overall quality assurance support. There is good demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements across multiple sites in Bangladesh. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). Good discussion of how the Offeror intends to ensure cost effective management across multiple sites. Probable chance of success. Weaknesses are offset by strengths.

Very Good. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to Overall quality assurance support. There is a very good demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements across multiple sites in Bangladesh. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). Very good discussion of how the Offeror intends to ensure cost effective management across multiple sites. Success is highly probable. Any weaknesses are insignificant and offset by strengths.

Exceptional. The Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative summary of their approach to Overall quality assurance support. There is an exceptional demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of quality assurance support requirements across multiple sites in Bangladesh. The Offeror provides an organizational structure (organogram). Exceptional discussion of how the Offeror intends to ensure cost effective management across multiple sites. Success is highly probably. No significant weakness and many strengths.

Attachment B - Past Performance (Factor 2)

Offerors shall provide three (3) projects where, in the last 5 years, they performed task that are similar in size, purpose, and magnitude (dollar value) to those listed in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The past performance for each offeror will be evaluated based on how recent and relevant the performance was compared to the services required in this request for proposal. Past performance completed within the last 5 years will be considered recent. Past performance for projects in the same geographical area of a similar size, purpose, and magnitude (dollar value) will be considered relevant. Each offeror will be assigned a performance confidence assessment based upon the past performance evaluation. The Offeror shall include a summary of the project and explain how the project is relevant to the work required by the RFP. Provide a customer point-of-contact for each project listed. In addition, provide any other pertinent past performance information that highlights the Offerors understanding and performance of QA services. The government will consider geographic location when evaluating the relevancy of past performance. The following information should be included for EACH project.

1) Summary of the Project Provide a concise description of the project or projects to include type of work, the location of work, country where the work was conducted, and the scope of the work conducted. Briefly explain how the work is relevant to the work contained in the RFP. The geographical location of the work will be considered in determining relevancy.

2) Customer Points of Contact Provide customer points of contact to include name, organization, address, email, and phone number.

3) Other Related Experience or Past Performance Information Provide summary of any other related and/or pertinent experience. Attach available past performance surveys and/or letters of reference as they relate to the project identified.

4) The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 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 2 Past Performance. 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 before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ Attachment, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project. 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, LTC Ryan Zachry, via email at ryan.b.zachry@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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, 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, joint venture, 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.

Past Performance

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

mailto:ryan.b.zachry@usace.army.mil

W911KB-15-R-0018

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

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

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

1.3 Price Proposal Evaluation (Volume II):

Price Proposal The price portion of this evaluation will be subjectively evaluated and a best-value analysis of the proposal as a whole will be performed to determine the best value to the Government. Cost analysis will be used for the purpose of determining the reasonableness, affordability, acceptability, and overall best value.

The price proposal shall clearly show the total cost (per line item) to the Government for providing QA Support services for required projects in Bangladesh, including break-out pricing for any miscellaneous activities not identified in the RFP. Offerors shall use the bid sheet provided by the Government when preparing price proposals (see Attachment D – Bid Sheet).

The Government reserves the right to open discussions regarding technical issues if it is deemed necessary, however, the contractor should prepare and submit is best offer in its proposal with no assumptions regarding further proposal discussion.

1.4 Best value trade-off

The contract will be awarded to the offering firm whose proposal provides the Best Value to the Government.

1.5 After evaluation is complete

Upon completion of each individual’s evaluation of an offeror’s Technical Proposal, voting members of the evaluation team will convene to reach a consensus and arrive at a single rating for Factor 1 (Management Approach) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) and a subsequent overall rating for the firm.

Consensus rating is not required on sub-factors as all are considered equal. The individual members’ narrative, rationale and notes will be utilized to form a consensus narrative that supports the consensus rating and includes the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and observations. The narrative description of the salient characteristics of the proposals will be compared to the requirements of the solicitation for each offeror. After completing the evaluation of all offers, the evaluation team will ensure the rating criteria are consistently applied to all proposals. Inconsistencies in ratings or rationale will be rectified at this time.

While individual committee members may have specific expertise in one functional area, each member shall independently consider the proposal. This serves several purposes. It allows an overview and ensures that all interrelationships are discussed. Full discussions of all matters considered by the board are encouraged and differences of opinion will be examined with the objective of reaching a consensus on each offeror’s proposal of common understanding of the issues where there are differing views.

W911KB-15-R-0018

1.6 Contacts with offerors after receipt of proposals

If the Government detects a minor informality or requires a clarification to any part of the offer, only the Contracting Officer may, in accordance with FAR 15.306(a), request such clarification without opening discussions. After the evaluation team convenes, and evaluation of offers begins, an offeror can eliminate a deficiency in its proposal only through discussion and subsequent proposal revision.

Clarifications and award without discussions.

1) Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

2) If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offeror's may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

3) For this contract, the Government intends to award without discussion.

1.7 Limits on exchanges

Government personnel involved in the acquisition shall not engage in conducts that --

a. Favors one Offeror over another;

b. Reveals an Offeror's technical solution, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise an Offeror's intellectual property to another Offeror;

W911KB-16-R-0018

c. Reveals an Offerors price without that Offeror's permission. However, the KO may inform an Offeror that its price is considered by the Government to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion. It is also permissible, at the Government's discretion, to indicate to all Offerors the cost or price that the Government's price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable.

d. Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance; or

e. Knowingly furnishes source selection information

1.8 Proposal revisions

The KO may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document the understandings reached during negotiations. The KO is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise Offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

1.9 Final evaluation

The evaluation team lead, assisted by the contract specialist, will develop, and forward to the KO, a report that documents the consensus ratings for each proposal with the supporting facts and rationale.

The report will include as a minimum:

a. A brief description of each proposal

b. An analysis of each proposal (initial, revised, and final revised), including an assessment of the Offeror’s compliance with the requirements of the Solicitation and any changes to the technical evaluation ratings along with a narrative evaluation to support the changes.

c. Revised rating sheets (individual and consensus)

1.10 Contract award

After signature of the evaluation plan decision document, the Contract Specialist will prepare the award document, and as appropriate, obtain the required reviews and approvals.

2.1 Notice to unsuccessful offerors

Postaward notices will be sent to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. In this selection process, a formal debriefing will be given to Offerors who request it in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506. Offerors may request a pre-award, or post-award debriefing under the applicable FAR provisions.

SCOPE OF WORK

Scope of Work Quality Assurance Services

Charmandika Coastal Crisis Management Center (CCMC)

Bangladesh

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this statement of work (SOW) is to detail Quality Assurance (QA) Contractor services in support of the design and construction of the Charmandika Coastal Crisis Management Center (CCMC) in Bangladesh. Work may include QA for site preparation, erosion control and stabilization, wells, water treatment, exterior distribution piping, electrical components and connections to include solar, sanitary systems, furniture, facility equipment, renovation and upgrade of existing structures, equipment retrofit, and other similar ancillary support elements, as specified. The U.S. Government (referred to here after as the Government) will accomplish this work utilizing a Design-Build (DB) approach where the Design-Build (DB) Contractor shall be required to provide design engineering expertise and construction services needed to build the complete facility. See attached bid sheet for guidance and price proposal format.

1.1 Requirements

The QA Contractor shall attend site visits and provide technical review of design documents, proposals, plans, invoices, shop drawings, vendor cut sheets and all other requirements contained in this SOW. In addition, the QA Contractor shall be onsite as specified in Section 2.5.2 to conduct quality assurance oversight and monitor design and construction progress.

Qualifications and credentials of personnel associated with the project shall be in accordance with host nation requirements except as otherwise noted in this SOW.

1.2 Project Phases

The QA Contractor shall assume the following time periods associated with the project phases of work:

Design Review Support Phase: 3 Months Construction and Closeout Support Phase: 12 Months

The Contractor shall provide a monthly cost for QA during the construction phase in the event that the construction exceeds the twelve month period.

1.3 Government Furnished Materials

The Government has provided Government Furnished Materials (GFM) as part of this SOW.

The following GFM are provided:

• Attachment A – Conceptual Site Survey. A site survey has been provided for the purpose of providing the QA Contractor with background information about the DB project site and scope.

• Attachment B – Summary of Deliverables with Established Timeframes. Attachment B is provided as a summary of contract deliverables with defined delivery dates.

2.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall provide the appropriate level of QA support during procurement, design and construction/closeout work at the Charmandika CCMC. The Charmandika CCMC site survey is included as Attachment A which is intended to provide the QA Contractor with a general understanding of the project site. The Contractor is responsible for visiting the site as needed to gain knowledge and awareness of the location and aspects associated with providing QA support.

Also attached to this SOW is Attachment B, QA Contract Deliverables. This document is intended to be a summary of contract deliverables with defined delivery dates. Please note that this list is provided as a summary of deliverables with set delivery date or timeframe and does not contain all SOW requirements. It is the Contractors’ responsibility to read the entire SOW to ensure compliance with all requirements. Submittal timeframes are in calendar days unless specified differently in the SOW.

2.1 Organizational Structure (Task 1)

Within seven (7) calendar days of contract award, the QA Contractor shall provide the USACE PM with names and qualifications of personnel responsible for QA activities at the site. The government has the right to approve.

2.2 Quality Assurance Work Plans (Task 2)

The Contractor shall prepare Quality Assurance Work Plans specific to the Charmandika CCMC

– one for the Design phase and one for the Construction and Closeout phase. The work plans shall include descriptions of how the QA Contractor intends to complete the requirements of this SOW to include details on how work will be managed, addressing both technical and schedule requirements.

The Design QA Work Plan shall detail the QA Contractor’s process for performing the review of the DB Contractor’s design documents to include review procedures and reference to the codes and standards to be used in the review. Note that use of the Design Review Checking (DrChecks) system (https://www.projnet.org) is required for providing comments and back-checking responses.

The Construction and Closeout QA Work Plan shall include:

• forms and procedures to document the QA efforts including monitoring the DB Contractors quality control (QC) processes. Furthermore, the work plan shall include a process for photographing key features of work during the construction process and comparing the photographs of representative items against the approved design (i.e., footings, grade beams, slabs, septic tanks, grounding, etc.);

• procedures for the review of DB Contractor submittals (daily, weekly, and monthly reports, material submittals, vendor cut sheets, and shop drawings);

• QA Contractor submittals (weekly and monthly reports) and

• handover procedures

The QA Work Plans shall be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days of award.

2.3 Pre-Design Support (Task 3)

https://www.projnet.org/

QA Contractor shall support the design-build procurement process through coordinating a site walk and by reviewing DB Contractor proposals, as specified in individual task orders. This effort is expected to be part of the scope of work for most project sites and is discussed below.

2.3.1 Site Walk (Task 3.1)

The QA Contractor shall be available for site walks to be conducted at the actual building site.

The site walks are held to provide opportunity for contractors to evaluate site conditions in comparison to the scope of work. The QA Contractor shall coordinate the site walk with the US Embassy, Civil Military Support Element (CMSE), USACE PM, and host nation government administrators. The site walk shall last no more than eight hours to include planning. The QA Contractor shall provide access to the site and shall lead the site walk only. The QA Contractor shall notify attendees that all questions shall be in writing and shall provide a handout, in English and the local language, which states this fact and provides space for writing comments and an email address for contacting personnel. It is very important that the QA Contractor does not provide direction to the potential DB Contractors during a site walk.

Within five (5) calendar days of completion of a site walk, the Contractor shall provide the USACE PM with a report summarizing the site walk. This shall include attendance, photographs, questions asked by the contractor and any site scoping issues that would lead to necessary modification of the Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP). Issues such as need for extra fill material; need for retaining walls; property constraints; need for additional demolition;

and/or other pertinent details that arise that were not originally identified in the RFP, shall be identified.

2.3.2 Source Selection Support (Task 3.2)

The QA Contractor shall assist the Government with the evaluation of contractor proposals during source selections in Bangladesh. The QA Contractor shall be required to sign a non-disclosure statement as part of the source selection. The QA Contractor shall review the 35-percent design submittals/proposals by prospective DB Contractors as part of the source selection at a meeting to be held in Bangladesh. Proposal review comments shall be due to the Government within 14 calendar days of receipt of the DB Contractor proposals. The Contractor shall also attend the post award meeting with DB Contractors and government representatives.

2.4 Design Review Support (Task 4)

2.4.1 Review of SSQCP (Task 4.1)

The QA Contractor shall review the DB Contractor’s SSQCP for adherence to the DB contract requirements, and provide comments to the DB Contractor and the USACE PM/QM within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt. The QA Contractor shall coordinate with the DB Contractor to resolve comments and to finalize the SSQCP. The QA Contractor shall incorporate the DB Contractor’s Material Submittals & Testing Requirements into its own QA Plan to create a unified submittal submission plan to the USACE PM.

2.4.2 QA/QC Coordination (Task 4.2)

Prior to the start of work, the QA Contractor shall meet with the DB Contractor’s Quality Control (QC) Manager to develop a mutual understanding of the interrelationship of the DB Contractor, QA Contractor, and Government quality efforts.

2.4.3 Review of Design Documents (Task 4.3)

Review other DB Contractor submittals to include geotechnical reports, proposals, design drawings, shop drawings, water supply designs, roof designs, material samples, operations and maintenance manuals, test reports, as-built drawings, and manufacturer’s certifications for conformance with provisions prescribed in the contract as applicable. Final design package and as built drawings (including architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, ancillary items, soils testing, structural calculations, specifications, SSQCP, and health and safety plan) shall be reviewed within twenty one (21) calendar days of receipt. Written comments shall be provided to the USACE PM using DrChecks. Recommend approval or disapproval as applicable for items submitted. As part of the review, the QA contractor may be requested to provide information on country standards for schools, medical clinics, structural standards and other applicable building standards. Forward any approvals or disapprovals to the USACE PM/QM for confirmation. The KO will be the final authority for approval.

2.5 Construction and Closeout Support – QA Engineering and Inspection Services

(Task 5) The QA Contractor shall provide QA engineering and inspection services associated with design and construction of the Charmandika CCMC. Oversight associated with all design build aspects to include site preparation; erosion control and stabilization; building construction and any associated building demolition; well installation; water treatment; exterior distribution piping;

installation of electrical components and connections to include solar; sanitary systems installation; furniture and furnishings; facility equipment; renovation and upgrade of existing structures equipment retrofit and other similar ancillary support elements etc. is required.. The QA Contractor shall monitor receipt and installation of all materials and furnishings.

The following specific QA engineering and inspection services shall be provided:

2.5.1 Safety Demonstration (Task 5.1)

The QA Contractor shall oversee DB Contractor’s safety demonstration related to scaffolding and electrical connection. The QA Contractor shall coordinate with the DB Contractor prior to the demonstration regarding appropriate setup and connection. The QA Contractor shall evaluate the DB Contractor’s demonstration in regard to safety. Upon completion, the QA Contractor shall document results of the demonstration in a brief letter report. The report shall be submitted within seven (7) calendar days of completion. If the QA Contractor determines that the DB Contractor has failed the demonstration, those details shall be identified and specific deficiencies noted. The QA Contractor shall notify the Government with the results of the demonstration. The DB Contractor shall be required to perform the demonstration until deficiencies are met.

The Contractor shall conduct all work in a safe manner in accordance with applicable safety requirements. As part of their ongoing safety program, the Contractor shall ensure that activity hazard analysis are conducted by the DB Contractor and that safety is incorporated into daily work activities and coordination meetings.

2.5.2 DB Contractor Performance Monitoring (Task 5.2)

The QA…