A.01.25_Attachment_A__PREQUALIFICATION_OF_SOURCES.pdf

FBO REQUEST FOR PREQUALIFICATION STATEMENTS

PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS

SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Attachment A

FACTOR 1, Corporate Bonding:

a. Submission Requirements: A letter from the surety documenting the single bonding of

$75M and aggregate bonding of at least $150M.

b. Evaluation: Go/No Go. The Government will evaluate if the surety is from the list of acceptable sureties and has provided verification that the firm has both the single and aggregate bonding capacity required for this program.

FACTOR 2, Specialized Experience:

a. Submission Requirements: Provide narrative supporting experience performing at least two (2) and no more than five (5) construction projects valued at $40M or above, that are similar in size, scope, complexity, and magnitude to the MDA projects defined under the

FBO Announcement. Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed by the date of this FBO announcement) or construction substantially completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this FBO

Announcement. NOTE: Relevant construction experience will be limited to performance of projects similar in size, scope, complexity, and magnitude to that outlined under the FBO announcement. A maximum of 5 projects will be evaluated. If more than 5 projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. Use the following format to provide project information:

i. Identification of the project

ii. Contract type (e.g., Design‐Build, Design‐Bid‐Build, Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Task Order, etc.),

iii. Total Construction Project Dollar Amount

iv. Start and Completion Dates (Month/Year) or percentage until complete

v. Role of Firm including a detailed description (address type of work performed, to include percentage of work as applicable for each team member; also, include any proposed team members that were directly involved in the project, including work performed, roles and responsibilities).

vi. A brief description of the project (address how this is relevant to these MDA projects).

vii. Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current phone number, and email address).

viii. Awards or recognition received, where applicable

b. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the extent of recent and relevant experience of the prime contractor and its proposed team in the roles they will have in this project. Experience of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered relevant unless the offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent, affiliate or separate division will affect the performance of the offeror on this project. The extent of relevant experience will be determined based on the similarity of the submitted projects to the size, scope, and magnitude to the MDA projects defined under the FBO Announcement. NOTE: Relevant construction experience will be limited to performance of projects similar in size, scope, complexity and magnitude to that outlined under the FBO announcement. A maximum of 5 projects will be evaluated. If more than 5 projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. The Government intends to give more consideration to prequalification statements that demonstrate the following (descending order of priority):

I. Projects completed in Climate Zone 7 or 8 ; Zone 8 preferred (as defined by

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 169 climate zone map for the United States)

II. Projects involving seismic risk, per UFC 3‐310‐04– Design for Enhanced Seismic

Performance, Risk Category 5requirements, HEMP protected mechanical and electrical equipment and blast protection.

III. Projects constructed in areas with limited logistical access.

IV. A higher number of recent and relevant projects, up to a maximum of five

V. Fully completed projects, rather than uncompleted projects.

VI. Projects that demonstrate experience coordinating with multiple other contractors on a single project site.

The evaluation ratings for Factor 2, Corporate Experience, will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the FBO Prequalification Statement responses. The Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical/risk rating for this factor as listed in the below Table.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Prequalification Statements meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Prequalification Statements meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Prequalification Statements contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Prequalification Statements meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Prequalification Statement does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Prequalification Statements has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Prequalification Statement does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Prequalification

Statement is unacceptable.

DEFINITIONS

Rating: The rating for Corporate Experience will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

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

Strength: Any aspect of a Prequalification Statements when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the Prequalification Statements or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a Prequalification Statements or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

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

Factor 3, Past Performance:

a. Submission Requirements: For each project submitted under Specialized Experience, that offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment B to this FBO

Announcement) to a representative of the owner that can provide the owner’s opinion of the offerors past performance for the projects. The Past Performance Questionnaire attached to this FBO announcement (Attachment B) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its response to this

Prequalification of Sources announcement. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should organize all Past

Performance Information based on the Specialized Experience projects. Offeror’s should also include the performance rating (if any) by the owner, if the offeror was rated. There is no page limit for past performance information. However, projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed by the date of this FBO announcement) or construction substantially completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this FBO Announcement. The Government will consider present or past performance efforts that involve similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities to this MDA projects to be relevant and more beneficial in identifying firms for inclusion on the prequalified list.

The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your response to this FBO announcement. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed Past Performance

Questionnaire from a client for a project(s) before the response date to this FBO announcement, the offeror should complete and submit with the response the first page of the Past Performance Questionnaire, 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 Contract, Kimberly Tripp, Alaska District Contract Specialist, 907‐753‐2549 at Kimberly.D.Tripp@usace.army.mil

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 offerors.

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past

Performance Questionnaires have been received. The Government may contact and interview points of contact on the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed references, if the listed reference is not available. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Award Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

For each project listed under Corporate Experience, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information, the offeror shall submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews that are likely not in the agency’s databases.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate past performance based on the offeror’s record of submitted relevant and recent past performance information. Offerors with no past performance will not be rated favorably or unfavorably and will receive a neutral rating.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

The entity will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. Offerors receiving a performance confidence assessment of Limited

Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence will not be considered as highly qualified for inclusion on the Prequalified Source List.

With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. Past performance of a parent, affiliate or separate division will not be considered relevant unless the offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent, affiliate or separate division will affect the performance of the offeror on this project. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as‐built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, O&M manuals, training, and problem resolution of construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described at the end of this section.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the Source Selection Team (SST) will first evaluate how relevant the recent effort is to the work required by this FBO announcement. The relevancy determination will be based on the Corporate Experience

Evaluation Criteria above, i.e., the similarity of the submitted projects to the size, scope, and complexity of the construction required by this FBO Announcement.

Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in the below Table 1:

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

For each past performance effort, the SST will then evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process will gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 2.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessment

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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

Factor 4, Principal Certification

a. Submission Requirements: Certification that all responses to the Prequalification of Sources announcement are accurate and complete by a principal of the firm. The prequalification response must be signed by a principal of the firm to be considered valid. Submission with electronic signatures are acceptable and have the full force and effect of ink signatures.

AM#1 The signer of the the prequalification response must provide evidence of authority to sign the submission. The evidence of authority WILL NOT count toward 50 page limit.

AM#1

b. Evaluation Criteria: Go/No Go. The Government will review all responses received to confirm that the response has been signed by a principal of the firm.

Documentation and Evaluation Results Supporting Inclusion on the List of Prequalified Sources

The SST will evaluate the prequalification statements received from the Prequalification of Sources FBO

Announcement based solely on the evaluation criteria identified above. The results of the SSEB evaluation will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) who will make the final decision regarding which firm(s) are included on the prequalified list of sources. The SSA will also determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications or communications prior to the establishment of the prequalified source list.