W912BU-10-R-0024-0006.pdf

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

POC: KARYN D. PRICE

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107

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

This is amendment 0006 under W912BU-10-R-0024.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jan-2011

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 W912BU-10-R-0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Jul-2010

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 X is extended, 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 1 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

13-Jan-2011

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

CONTRACTING DIVISION

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912BU

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BU-10-R-0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMEND 0006 - SUMMARY OF CHANGE

1. The required response date/time has changed from 20-Jan-2011 01:15 PM to 24-Jan-2011 01:15

PM.

2. Please replace section L, evaluation criteria with the attached section L, evaluation criteria.

3. Please replace section M, evaluation factors with the attached section M, evaluation factors.

4. Please incorporate the attached questions/answers.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

L-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to provide electrical services in support of contingency operations in Afghanistan. The services under this contract include: labor, materials to support these services, distribution, power plant installation, equipment rental, mobilization/demobilization costs, fuel and meetings/conferences. Many of the forward operating base commands (FOBS) are in need of electricity for critical installation support facilities in support military operations.

This requirement will be for a base year plus four twelve month option periods. The government intends to issue three IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) type contracts with a total contract ceiling of $490M for all awards.

This action will be competed under full and open competition procedures. This procurement is unrestricted. After proposals are received, a SSEB (Source Selection Evaluation Board) will take part in the evaluation of the proposals. An award will be made in accordance with FAR part 15, Contracting by negotiation. The resulting contract will be a multiple award, firm fixed price, IDIQ.

Award will be made to the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Management Capability, Past Performance and Price. The non-cost factors which are Technical Capability, Management Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance. The three non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory” must be achieved for all factors and all sub-factors.

OFFERORS ARE TO BE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO AWARD THE CONTRACT WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS OR ANY CONTACT

CONCERNING THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offeror. The Government may contact offerors for the purpose of clarifying aspects of the proposal. The Government also reserves the right to enter into discussions if deemed necessary, and if discussions are conducted, the offerors will be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposal. Any proposal that does not contain all required volumes will automatically be considered non-responsive.

L-2 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall submit six (6) copies of the proposal total (1 original and 5 copies). The Proposal shall include an index of the complete Proposal to identify the content, and to assist in locating the specific elements or topics required to be addressed by the Offerors as outlined in this Section. It is preferred that page separators or tabs be used.

Section B of the Solicitation must be filled in and included with the Proposal to reflect the offered price. This page is the Price Proposal, and must be separate or separable from the rest.

Price information shall only be displayed in volume IV, Price.

The Offerors are advised that each Proposal submitted must be complete and organized to address the specific elements or topics required, in the sequence outlined in this Section. This is necessary to facilitate and expedite an effective review.

Offerors that submit Proposals that are not complete may or may not be given the opportunity to submit any additional material and may be considered unacceptable. As a minimum the information required in this Section shall be included in each Proposal submitted. Additional data, which would serve to clarify the Proposal, should also be submitted. Any other information deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer for a clear understanding of the Proposal shall be furnished if requested.

Generally, proposals shall not include major alternative features offered as options within the proposal. Each proposal must be clear as to the services and features to be offered. This will facilitate a fair and equitable review and evaluation.

However, there may be cases where the Contractor may want to offer alternative equipment, subcontractors, or vendors within the proposal for various reasons, including but not limited to:

preservation of a future competitive environment between vendors or improved value of the proposal to the Government by offering choices, at the Government’s discretion.

When alternatives are presented, they must be clear whether the choice of that alternative is at the Government's unilateral discretion or if the Contractor retains the choice of the selection.

In the case where the Government is offered unilateral choice in selection between alternatives (no risk in the selection process), the evaluation of that feature will be based upon the selection considered by the Government evaluators as most favorable to the Government.

In the event that the Contractor retains the choice to make the selection between alternatives (most risk), Government evaluators will assess that feature based upon the least favorable of the alternatives, since that one may be the one that the Contractor selects. In no case, shall the use of alternatives within a single proposal result in more than one price offering for that proposal.

The same offeror, however, may send in more than one complete proposal, to propose significant alternative features and different pricing.

L-3 DEFINITIONS

A. Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, where correction of this error is not possible without major revisions to the proposal, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level or when a failure to meet the RFP requirements is a life/safety issue.

B. Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance but is easily correctable. Successful contract performance is defined by customer satisfaction.

C. Significant Weakness

As flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Successful contract performance is defined by customer satisfaction.

D. Strength

An aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government. A strength can only exist in area of the proposal that is covered by prescriptive RFP requirements. Anything above a prescriptive RFP requirement will be considered a betterment.

E. 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.

F. 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.

L-4 RATING SYSTEM

A. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) and Price Evaluation Committee (PEC) will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals.

B. Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

C. Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the TEC will assign an adjective rating to each factor and subfactor identified in the RFP, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned to Factors 1 and 2, using the following criteria:

(i) Excellent: proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of the requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the government. The proposal contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies and presents very low risk that it will not be successful.

(ii) Good: Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards; has one or more strengths that will benefit the government. The proposal has no deficiencies and is an acceptable solution. Any weakness notes in the proposal are minor and should not seriously affect the Offeror’s performance and presents how low risk that it will not be successful.

(iii) Satisfactory: Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of the requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. The approach may include both strengths and weaknesses of substance, where strengths are not outweighed by weakness.

Collectively, strengths and weaknesses are likely to result in acceptable performance. Has no deficiencies and is an acceptable solution. The risk or unsuccessful performance is low to moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical.

(iv) Unsatisfactory: Proposal fails to meet performance capability standards and contains deficiencies. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. The risk or unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical and/or do not meet the solicitation requirement.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM:

The following rating scale will be used for technical evaluation of past performance of proposals (Factor III):

Past Performance Relevance: Determination regarding the relevance of past performance to solicitation requirements will be valuation of past performance as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform successfully will include:

• A relevant past performance project is defined as any project that would fit within the scope of work of this contract.

• The evaluation committee will also rate the overall degree of confidence the government has in a firm’s ability to provide the work required based on their past performance submittals. The following rating scale will be used for technical evaluation of past performance of proposals:

Relevance RATING

Relevant: Past/Present effort involved much of the magnitude of effort as stated in requirements

Somewhat Relevant Past/Present effort involved some of the magnitude of effort as stated in requirements.:

Not Relevant Past/Present effort involved little to none of the magnitude of effort as stated in requirements.

The government will rate past performance by relevance, risk and the overall degree of confidence the government has in a firm’s ability to provide the work required based on their past performance submittals.

• The government will make an assessment of the performance risk based on the contractor’s relevant past performance projects and the questionnaire forms submitted by the offeror’s customers. The government may consider in its review documented government records on previous similar contracts and corporate knowledge. Any adverse information that is discovered and considered in its review will be shared with the offeror and the offeror will have the opportunity to respond. The performance risk provides insight into an offeror’s probability of successfully completing the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts. The proposal will be given a past performance risk rating of low, moderate, high and unknown the performance risk rating scheme.

LOW Low risks that the contractor will not perform successfully.

MODERATE Considerable doubt exists that the contractor will not perform.

HIGH High risk exists that the contractor will not perform successfully.

UNKNOWN The risk is unknown because no past performance information was submitted or exists for this firm.

PRICE WILL BE EVALUATED FOR REASONABLENESS: The proposed contract prices in schedule B and the sample task will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and assessed to ensure that proposed prices are not too high or too low. A government estimate will be developed for comparison.

L-5 RATING GUIDELINES.

Factor I: Technical Capability:

All subfactors under Factor 1 will be individually rated by TEC Consensus and then rolled up into one overall rating for this factor. The Government will not award to an offeror that receives less than a satisfactory rating in any subfactor.

Factor II: Management Capability:

All subfactors under Factor 2 will be individually rated by TEC Consensus and then rolled up into one overall rating for this factor. The Government will not award to an offeror that receives less than a satisfactory rating in any subfactor.

Factor III: Past Performance:

The subfactors under Factor 3 will be individually rated by the TEC Consensus and then rolled up into one overall rating for this factor. The rating of the subfactors will be based on the performance risk rating scheme. However, the overall rating of this factor will be dependent on the ratings for each subfactor. The Government will not award to an offeror that receives an high risk rating for the factor. If one (1) project receives an unsatisfactory past performance evaluation or if the offeror fails to submit any projects that are similar or meet scope, magnitude, and complexity of the subject procurement, it will receive an high risk rating for this factor.

L-6 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS

The offeror must label each volume with the Solicitation Number and Volume Title as listed in the table below. Each offeror must submit separate volumes with the numbers of copies and within the page limits as follows:

VOLUME SECTION

TITLE

ELECTRONIC

COPIES (CD)

(TOTAL)

PAPER

COPIES

(TOTAL – ALL

SUBMISSION

LOCATIONS)

PAGE

LIMITS

I – Technical Capability

Specialized Experience

2 (for entire Tech volume)

Original plus 5 copies

5 (excluding resumes)

Technical Approach and Technical Merit for Sample Task

Original plus 5 copies

10 plus up to 20 pages of cut sheets.

Quality of Equipment

Original plus 5 copies

II –Management Capability

All Subfactors 2 Original plus 5

III – Past Performance

Relevant Past Projects

2 Original plus 5

IV – Price Bid Schedule 2 Original plus 5

No Limit

V – SF 33 Completed RFP, SF 33

2 Original plus 5

No limit

• There is no page limit for past performance questionnaires and does not contribute to the total page limitations.

• The use of Tabs or Section dividers will not contribute to the total page limitations.

L-7 PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRECONTRACT COSTS

This request for proposal does not commit the government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and publication of a proposal or for any other costs incurred prior to the execution of a formal contract.

L-8 PREAWARD SURVEY

The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any firm under consideration to confirm any part of the information furnished by the offerror, or to require other evidence of managerial, financial, technical, and other capabilities, the positive establishment of which is determined by the Government to be necessary for the successful performance of the contract.

L-9 SEALED PROPOSALS

The offer shall be plainly marked:

FOB Power Plants in Afghanistan Request for Proposal No. W912BU-10-R-0024

Proposals shall be submitted in person or mailed to the address below:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District Attn: CENAP-CT (Karyn D. Price) Wannamaker Bldg., Rm 643 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390

** No fax or emailed proposals will be accepted.

Proposals shall be submitted using a font style of Times New Roman and a font size of no less than 12. Proposals shall have one inch margins. Proposals may be double sided however a double side page will count as 2 pages to your total page limitations.

To be considered for selection, the offeror must submit a complete response to this solicitation using the sequence and format provided in Section L and M.

Proposals shall not be permanently bound. All proposals shall be submitted in a loose 3-ring binder, or equivalent. This will facilitate the evaluation process, if any pages need to be substituted later.

The offeror shall confine its submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation in order to reduce proposal size. Please see page number limits and requirements in L-6.

The Government will not assume, nor consider anything that is not specifically addressed in the proposals.

Failure to show that the products or services offered conform to the minimum requirements of the specifications will result in rejection of the proposal.

For document control purposes, all proposal revisions provided after the initial proposal shall be submitted as page changes with each page identified by revision number and date, as well as the page number. Page changes shall be formatted to allow removal of old pages and insertion of change pages. New/changed information shall be identified by a vertical line (|) in the left margin and/or the redline feature for ease in identifying the change. All new/changed information must be identified by the offeror.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Award will be made on the best overall proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors:

Technical Capability, Management Capability, Past Performance and Price. The non-cost factors which are Technical Capability, Management Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance. The three non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price factor.

Volume 1, Factor I – Technical Capability

Factor/Sub factor Location Description Factor I Volume 1 Technical Capability Sub factor 1 Volume 1, Tab A Specialized Experience Sub factor 2 Volume 1, Tab B Technical Approach and

Technical Merit for Sample Task

Sub factor 3 Volume 1, Tab C Quality of Equipment

All subfactors are of equal importance.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1 – Specialized Experience

Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical experience, expertise, capabilities, and technical resources and its ability to assemble additional resources in an expeditious manner sufficient to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work, as well as its key personnel and its experience with the team members and major subcontractors proposed.

Offeror’s shall also address their corporate knowledge and experience related to electrical installations in general and in hostile environments and in locations with minimal infrastructure and overall primitive conditions.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative explanation of their technical experience as specifically applied to the type of work identified in the statement of work.

Resumes for key individuals that will be involved with the work shall be provided along with the typical duties that will be assigned to those individuals. If subcontractor organizations are a part of the contractor’s team, information related to key individuals on those staffs shall be provided.

Offeror’s shall explain their historical relationship with key subcontractors, to include projects previously worked as a team. Offeror’s shall use this subfactor to identify any significant relevant experience, relevant credentials and relevant training; particularly with regard to electrical installations and code compliance. The submittal shall include the reasoning why the Government should consider the experience relevant. Offeror’s shall also address their ability to respond to emerging power needs from a “responsiveness” standpoint.

Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach and Technical Merit to Sample Tasks

Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to the sample task from a technical risk standpoint. The evaluation will include an assessment of resources applied, equipment and machinery applied, equipment and machinery required to perform the installation, logistics and staging, and materials identified for use. The evaluation will also consider the sequencing of the work and the time frames identified to accomplish the task, as broken down into manageable components. The evaluation will be made to assess the offeror’s ability to understand the task and develop a logical, effective, and efficient approach to accomplishing it.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall prepare a sample proposal for the sample task as if this were an actual task order being requested under the contract. The proposal should include a narrative explaining the general approach to the task, with scheduling, resourcing, potential risks, logistical considerations, security considerations, material s to be applied, general methods of construction, etc. The offeror shall provide a one-line diagram for the proposed system and shall provide manufacturer’s literature for key components. It is not intended for the sample task to completely define a specific installation, but is intended to give the offeror the opportunity to display their knowledge related to this type of work. In that regard, offeror’s are invited to identify any assumptions they make when developing their proposal or concerns they would have in actually doing the task. The reasonableness and thoughtful use of assumptions will be considered as a means to evaluate contractor knowledge of this type of work.

Subfactor 3 - Quality of Equipment

Evaluation: This entire procurement is designed to provide rapid electrical response for emerging needs in primitive environments. As such, it is the Government’s expectation that the offeror will have ready access to generators to support this project, to include specific sources of supply. From a technical risk standpoint, the Government will evaluate as much detail as can be provided at this time by the offeror with the intent of reducing Government technical risk. The Government is looking for reliable power; with configurations that allow operating flexibility with the objective of optimizing fuel usage (fuel is difficult to obtain in those locations). In this case reliability is a function of quality, redundancy, maintenance, and support. As part of this evaluation, the Government will review the offeror’s approach to the sample task to assess the offeror’s ability to configure a system that minimizes fuel usage (most efficient use based on load), and to offer a system that increases reliability with the objective of eliminating system outages.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall provide a narrative discussion of their planned approach to providing reliable electrical generating and distribution equipment. The submittal may be as detailed as practicable and may include specific manufactures and models. More information provided as part of this submittal will allow the Government to make a more informed decision about risk. A sketchy or limited response will be viewed as inherently more risky. A detailed response will be evaluated for risk on its own merits.

Volume 2, Factor II – Management Capability

Factor III Volume 2 Management Capability Sub factor 1 Volume 2, Tab E Ability to manage and supervise Work in a hostile, primitive environment

Sub factor 2 Volume 2, Tab F Financial Capability Sub factor 3 Volume 2, Tab G Human Resources Sub factor 4

Volume 2, Tab H Logistical Capability

Factor 2 – Management Capability

Subfactor 1 - Ability to Manage and Supervise Work in a hostile, primitive environment

Evaluation: The primary purpose of this contract is to support emerging military electrical needs. As such, the ability of the contractor to plan, schedule, manage, and supervise electrical installations may be critical to base operations. The Government will evaluate the risk associated with the offeror’s ability to respond to emerging needs within the scope of this contract from a management standpoint.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall provide a tentative Operations Action Plan overview encompassing the requirements of Section C 2.1.1 (A through L) describing how they intend to fulfill the requirements of the MATOC Scope Of Work. The offeror shall provide a narrative explaining their overall approach to managing task orders that will be placed under this contract.

The narrative shall provide examples and anecdotal evidence to support their statements related to management of similar parallel types of activities. Discussions must explain the relevance of the examples. The offeror is free to provide any input related to management to provide the Government with confidence that possible work will be effectively performed with the minimum possible risk to those that will be dependent upon the new electrical installations.

Subfactor 2 – Financial Capability

Evaluation: Due to the potential for immediate support in a hostile environment, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to execute task orders under this contract from a financial risk standpoint. Financial risk means the likelihood the work will stall or be disrupted due to cash flow or other financial issues experienced by the contractor or its subcontractors.

Offerors shall presume traditional reimbursement of cost by the Government in accordance with standard Government contract payment terms.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative explanation and any supporting documentation that would convince the Government that task order performance will not be disrupted by cash flow or other financial issues pertaining to the contractor or its subcontractors.

Evidence of ability to support projects from a fiscal standpoint, including ability to bond and ability to borrow should be submitted.

Subfactor 3 – Human Resources

Evaluation: Due to the potential for immediate support in a hostile environment, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to execute task orders under this contract from a human resource risk standpoint. Human Resource risk means the likelihood that the work cannot be performed expeditiously and efficiently from a human resources standpoint and may be disrupted or slowed due to the inability to adequately staff the job with people that have the requisite competencies.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall provide a narrative explanation and any supporting documentation associated with the ability to staff work in a hostile, primitive environment. The explanation shall incorporate any projected use of subcontractors or labor pools. The submittal should present the offeror’s ability to staff multiple task orders and should identify any reasonable limitations. Offeror’s have the flexibility to submit any documentation that would allow the Government to have confidence that the offeror can expeditiously support task orders under this contract with competently trained personnel.

Subfactor 4- Logistical Capability

Evaluation: Due to the potential for immediate support in a hostile environment, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to execute task orders under this contract from a logistics standpoint and evaluate the risk to the Government associated with the offeror’s ability to manage logistics. Logistics includes the ability to move people, materials, equipment, and any other items that are necessary to perform the work. Logistical risk means the likelihood that the work cannot be performed expeditiously and efficiently from a logistics standpoint and may be disrupted or slowed due to the inability to adequately mobilize needed resources.

Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall provide a narrative explanation and any supporting evidence of its ability to deal with logistical issues associated with performing work in a hostile/primitive environment to include dealing with the military and dealing with shipment through foreign countries and shipping agents. The response should focus on the unique logistical problems associated with material movements and operations in Afghanistan.

Volume 3, Factor III – Past Performance

Factor/Sub factor Location Description Factor III Volume 3 Past Performance Subfactor 1 Volume 3, Tab K Relevant Past

Performance Projects

Subfactor 2 Volume 3, Tab L Past Performance Questionnaires

a. Relevant Past Performance Projects: Past projects will be evaluated for merit in comparison to the potential requirements of this contract. The offerors shall submit relevant past performance projects in the format provided in Attachment A. The contractor is encourage to submit an unlimited amount of relevant projects however the total page limit for this section may not exceed 10.

b. Past Performance questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal by the contractor.

Questionnaires may be submitted directly to the contracting officer by any of the firm’s previous customers. The offerors shall submit past performance questionnaires in accordance with Attachment B.

Volume 4, Factor IV – Price

Factor IV Volume 4 Cost Sub factor 1 Volume 4, Tab L Evaluation of bid schedule Sub factor 2 Volume 4, Tab M Evaluation of sample task order pricing

a. Evaluation of Bid Schedule: The proposed contract cost will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and assessed to ensure that proposed costs are not too high or too low. An IGE will be developed for comparison.

b. Evaluation of sample task order pricing: The proposed costs of the sample task will be evaluated for price reasonableness and assessed to ensure that proposed costs are not too high or too low. An IGE will be developed for comparison.

ATTACHMENT A

RELEVENT PAST PROJECTS

PROJECT:

Offeror’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ Provide a completed form for each project for which experience is being claimed.

Experience Provided for (check more than one box if applicable):

[ ] Offeror: ___________________________________________________________________________ [ ] Design Firm: ___________________________________________________________________________ [ ] Key Subcontractor: ______________________________________________________________________

Was the project design-build? ___ Yes ___ No

Was Project a firm-fixed-price contract (Y/N)? ____ If No, what type was it?

Project Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________ Owner/Client:

Firm’s role on this project as reported on this Project Experience form: [ ] prime contractor; or [ ] subcontractor; or [ ] design firm

Brief Description of Project (Include, as applicable, how project is similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this RFP)

Contract Amount: ________________________ Original Contract Completion Date: ________________________ Final Contract Completion Date: ________________________

Actual Completion Date: ________________________ Percent of Completion (if project is currently under construction) ____________________

Explanation of any Late Finish:

Was the project terminated early or were cure/show cause letters received? ___Yes ___No Explain early termination (default/convenience) or cure/show cause letters

Safety record: ____Injuries with Lost Workdays*, ____Injuries without Lost Workdays*

(*Use the number reported on OSHA Form No. 200 or equivalent)

List and explain any customer concerns or dissatisfaction. Explain how you responded.

Name, address, FAX and telephone number of the Contracting Officer if project was for federal government:

Comment If Previous Design/Construction Partnering With Each Other

ATTACHMENT B

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, is interested in your assessment of the named company's “Past Performance". Past Performance refers to the company's record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the company's record of forecasting and controlling costs; the company's adherence to contract schedules including the administrative aspects of performance; the company's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and the company’s general business-like concern for the interest of the customer. These questions relate to the work performed by:

1. ______________________________________________________________________ (Name of Offeror)

2. ______________________________________________________________________ (Past Project Name & Location)

3. Responsibility on the Project:

[ ] Contractor [ ] Architect/Engineer [ ] Key Sub-Contractor

4. Contract Amount: ________________________

Contract Completion Date: ________________________

Percent of Completion (if project is currently under construction) _________________

Was the project design/build? _____ YES _____ NO

5. Client Name/Title ____________________________________________

Telephone ___________________________________________________

Date ________________________________________________________

6. (Brief Description of Project) (Include, as applicable, how project is similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this RFP- (Offeror may input into this line item. )

7. List and explain any customer concerns or dissatisfaction.

8. How would you rate the performance of this Contractor on Your project?

a. Conformance to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship.

Excellent Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory

b. Adherence to contract schedules.

c. Reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

d. Conformance to contract safety requirements.

e. Contractor’s price, in terms of initial price and control of changes or claims.

Excellent Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory

f. Overall Rating

THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY

(End of Summary of Changes)

AMEND 06 - QUEST/ANSWERS

Question Number

PWS

Reference

Question Answers

127 Amendment

Per the questions and answers received in Amendment 0005, it is clear that for the CLIN(s), which require a monthly rate (for example CLIN 006, 007,008 and 009), the Contractor should not include the material associated for the one time installation cost. In reference to page 3 of 68, BOM is described as "a complete materials list to fully accomplish Task Order Scope of Work".

Please clarify what monthly costs are to be associated with CLIN's 008 and 009?

We understand that all labor should be associated with CLIN 002, and BOM is described as a complete material list to fully accomplish the Task Order, which would include the cables, concrete, poles, lugs, etc.... If all cables and poles are to be abondened in place, this cost is not a monthly rate, but rather a BOM cost.

Is this the USG's intent?

Costs for CLINS 0006 through 0010 are to include all material and equipment costs for supplied leased components, and all other costs necessary to provide functional electrical installations, except as specifically exempted above.

It is the intention of these CLINS that these systems will not become government owned property, and will be leased from the contractor.

Costs for these CLINs include the cost of the lease for generators, power plants, distribution equipment, switch gear, and other ancillary equipment to be part of the operation and maintenance of these systems.

Labor cost for O&M is included in CLIN 0002.

Cost for the construction of the system, such as labor and construction equipment, are included in CLINs 0002 and 0004 respectively.

128 Amendment 0005, Pages 26 & 27

Page 26 of 68, Section 3.4 states, The length of this network is "10 KM of 3 phase, direct burial insulated cable". Per the sample drawing on page 27 of 68, the scale given seems to give a much smaller area to accomadate a 10 KM network.

Please clarify the purpose of 10 KM legnth when a drawing is given. Should the contractor estimate cable legnth and size based on the entire load of a 10 KM network regardless of the conceptial network design for the loads given?

We beleive that 10 KM legnth is excessive for the square footage given in the sample drawing.

Yes, the contractor shall provide 10KM length however if the contractor would like to propose a different length, an explaination shall be included that explains the deviation.