W912ER-16-R-0009_Solicitation.pdf

Project Title: Mina Salman Pier Replacement, Naval Support Activity (NSA), Bahrain

This is a Design-Build Project.

Offerors shall furnish Bid Guarantee in accordance w ith FAR 52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE.

DIANE E DELATHOUDER

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

13-Jan-2016

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

Mina Salman Pier Replacement

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______20 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________730 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________2 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________12 Feb 2016 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______90 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT, CETAM-CT

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

W912ER

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE W912ER

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

04:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT (CETAM-CT)

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

P2 # 450533

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: XXX-XXX-XXXX FAX:

W912ER-16-R-0009 60

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued)

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912ER-16-R-0009

Section 00 11 00 - Standard Form (SF) 1442 and CLIN Schedule

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Mobilization/Demobilization

FFP

Mobilization and Demobilization in accordance with the contract documents.

Proposal Schedule and Cost Breakdown To Be Determined at Phase-Two RFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job Base Bid Design

Base Bid Design in accordance with the contract documents.

0003 1 Job Steel Pier Construct

Steel Pier Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0004 1 Job Water Front Utilities

Water Front Utilities Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0005 1 Job Water Front Demolition

Water Front Demolition Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0006 1 Job Water Front ATFP

Water Front ATFP Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0007 1 Job OPTION Navigation Dredging and Reclamation

FFP

Option 1: Navigation Dredging and Reclamation Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0008 1 Job OPTION Shore Power Distribution

FFP

Option 2: Shore Power Distribution Construct in accordance with the contract documents.

0009 1 Job OPTION Electronic Security Systems

FFP

Option 3: Electronic Security Systems (ESS) construct in accordance with the contract documents.

The Government reserves the right to incorporate the successful contractor’s Phase One and Phase Two proposal into the contract and distribute the proposal as deemed necessary.

Funds are not presently available for this acquisition. No Contract Award will be made until appropriated funds are made available.

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

INDEX

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

A AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

B PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

C PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

D PHASE I BASIS OF EVALUATION

E NON-PRICING PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

F PHASE II BASIS FOR AWARD

G PHASE II FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

H MAGNITUDE OF PROJECT

I BIDDER INQUIRY IN PROJNET

J ADDRESSING PROPOSALS

52.204-6 DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER

52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

52.204-16 COMMERCIAL & GOVERNMENT ENTITY CODE REPORTING

52.214-34 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

52.214-35 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS IN U.S. CURRENCY

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

52.236-27

SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I (FEB

1995)

52.236-28 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS--CONSTRUCTION

252.204-7004 ALTERNATE A, SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

252.215-7008 ONLY ONE OFFER

252.236-7008 CONTRACT PRICE – BIDDING SCHEDULE

A. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Funds are not currently available for this project which represents a validated requirement for which funds are being reprogrammed. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are made available to the Agent. The

Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation either before or after the closing date, and there shall be no legal liability on the part of the Government, to include liability for contractor’s proposal costs.

B. PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

Do not submit pricing information in Phase I. Electronic or faxed proposal submissions will not be considered. Phase

I proposals shall be clearly marked on the outside of the package with the solicitation number. The closing date annotated on the pre-solicitation notice via FedBizOpps is for FedBizOpps archiving purpose only.

Only up to five (5) of the most highly qualified firms as evaluated in Phase I will receive the Final RFP and be requested to provide Phase II proposals. The following Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are applicable to this acquisition and may be viewed at: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

The following items are required and shall be submitted with and made a part of each Contractor's proposal. Extreme care and personal attention should be given to assure that all required items are included in the proposal.

Summary of Phase I Submission Requirements: The Phase I qualification proposal must include:

- Cover Letter (see content instructions below)

- Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Section 00 45 00)

- Subcontractor Letters of Commitment (if applicable).

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

- Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00 45 00). The offeror shall complete all items contained in the Representation and Certifications.

- Information addressing Factor 1: Technical Approach (Attachments A – B)

- Information addressing Factor 2: Past Performance and Attachments (Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS reports, etc.).

NOTE: It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all past performance questionnaire surveys are completed on or before the closing date and time of the Phase I Request for Qualifications.

C. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

- Cover Letter

- Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership

- Letters of Commitment from Subcontractors (LOC) (if applicable)

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

- Completed Representation and Certification

- FACTOR 1 Technical Approach

- FACTOR 2 Past Performance

Proposal Preparation. Cover Letter of the proposal should include:

- Solicitation number/Phase-One

- The name, addresses, telephone number, and email address of the prospective offeror

- The DUNS number, CAGE Code, and TIN of the prospective offeror

All offerors are required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be determined non-responsive.

The request for qualification should contain a master "Table of Contents" for the proposal. This master index should identify major areas by title, as well as page numbers and location. A copy of this master "Table of Contents” should be placed in front of the binder.

The proposal should include an (1) original and two (2) copies of both the qualification proposal volume along with one (1) CD which contains all files in an Adobe portable document format (pdf). The Original (1) and Each Copy (2) must be individually bound in a three-ring binder. Each section of the volume must be individually tabbed and labeled.

The proposal must be prepared on 8-1/2" x 11" paper (11”X17” for drawings), A-4, bond paper and include a Title

Page and a Table of Contents unless otherwise stated under each Factor. Margins should be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”) and font face is Times New Roman and font size should be no smaller than 10 size. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on both sides. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified herein. The proposal must be tabbed and bound or presented in a three-ring binder. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required.

The offeror shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of its proposal: “Source Selection

Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Do not disclose any source selection information to any unauthorized person.”

Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

Lack of applicable Letter(s) of Commitment is considered a deficiency and submissions lacking the applicable

Letter(s) of Commitment may not be considered.

Amendments to the RFP. Any and all amendments to the Phase One Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued electronically and be available via www.fbo.gov . It is the Offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this RFP and acknowledge any and all amendments in the text of the cover letter (amendment number and date acknowledged by Offeror) sent with their proposal package in response to this RFP. Those offerors selected to receive the Phase Two RFP will be notified how to access the Phase Two documents.

Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit. No pre-proposal conference or site visit will be conducted during Phase

One. A pre-proposal conference and site visit will be conducted during Phase Two.

Joint Ventures (JV). A joint venture is defined as follows: a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliance”, which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

Offerors proposing as joint ventures shall provide evidence that the Joint Venture as a legal entity has been duly formed. Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. The

Government will not evaluate the capability of any contractors that are not included in the joint venture agreement.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole. Prospective Offerors that submit Phase One proposals may not change their firm (including LOC’s and proposed sub-contractors) or their Joint Venture firms, if selected to submit Phase Two proposals. If the offeror proposes to change subcontractors or Letter of Commitment after award, the offeror may not change subcontractors or Letter of Commitment without the Contracting Officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interest of the Government.

Subcontractors. The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. Therefore, if an Offeror wishes to be credited with experience and past performance of a subcontractor (i.e., a firm that is not a member of the Joint Venture), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the firm must be submitted. The letter of commitment must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a Joint Venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a Joint Venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which a Joint

Venture partner is also a subsidiary). If such a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience and past performance of subcontractor firms may not be considered. If the Offeror’s proposal includes the use of subcontractors, the Offeror may not change subcontractors without the Contracting Officer’s approval. If the offeror proposes to change subcontractors or Letter of Commitment after award, the offeror may not change subcontractors or Letter of Commitment without the Contracting Officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the Contracting Officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal in all respects to the originally proposed subcontractor and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

System For Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including Joint Venture entities) shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and determined to be responsible prior to Award. For more information, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

Please ensure that NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) is listed in your SAM registration.

Expenses Incurred. The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any response(s) to this solicitation.

Discussions. The Government intends to select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors in Phase

One without conducting discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Obtaining a D.U.N.S. Number. Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) Number. The Data Universal

Numbering System (D-U-N-S) Number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial company Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). Call D&B at 1-866-705-5711 or access their website if you do not have a D-U-N-S number. The site addresses are http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform OR http://www.dnb.com/.

The process to request a D-U-N-S number via phone takes about 10 minutes and is free of charge. Internet request are fulfilled within 24 hours. You must have a different nine-digit D-U-N-S number for each physical location or different address in your company as well as each legal division that may be co-located.

Late Proposals. Any proposal, modification, or revision received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and--(1) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 4:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or (2) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or (3) It is the only proposal received. However, a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted. Acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the Government installation includes the time/date stamp of that installation on the proposal wrapper, other documentary evidence of receipt maintained by the installation, or oral testimony or statements of Government personnel.

D. PHASE I BASIS OF EVALUATION

To determine the Most Highly Qualified contractors, a source selection process will be used that involves evaluation of qualification proposals.

Phase I evaluation Factors: Phase I evaluation factor, Technical Approach shall be evaluated using reasoned judgment that results in the assignment of a combined technical/risk rating as follows: Outstanding with Very Low risk, Good with Low risk, Acceptable with Moderate risk, Marginal with High risk, or Unacceptable encompassing a proposal that is unawardable. The Past Performance evaluation factor will be evaluated for Relevancy and

Confidence.

https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

After evaluating Phase I proposals, the Contracting Officer shall select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit Phase II proposals. The maximum number of offerors selected to submit Phase II proposals shall not exceed five (5).

In the case of the Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation factor, there are two aspects to the evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort of this acquisition. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a Past Performance Relevancy Rating as follows: Very Relevant; Relevant; Somewhat Relevant; Not Relevant, as the source selection requires a greater level of relevance discrimination. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts. Past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment. The evaluation will result in the assignment of a

Performance Confidence Assessment as follows: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited

Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown Confidence (Neutral). In those circumstances where an offeror does not have a relevant record of past performance or for whom past performance information is not available, that offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on its past performance. In situations of this kind, the adjective rating of Unknown Confidence (Neutral) will be assigned to the evaluation factor of Past Performance. The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to an offeror from governmental and non-government sources and databases.

There may be contained within the evaluation factors certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. There are also contained within the described factors certain documents required for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that an offer is unacceptable. (A final determination that an offer is unacceptable means that an award to the offeror involved cannot be made.) Use of the words “will,” “shall” or “must” indicates a mandatory requirement for which failure to comply, at the time and date for submission of proposals, shall result in the proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, unless the Government elects to initiate discussions with some or all of the offerors in accordance with appropriate provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offerors involved can be made. Failure to comply with non-pricing requirements that are annotated with the words such as “should” or “may” might result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings involved and may have significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award.

The Government intends to select most highly qualified offerors without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if determined by the Government to be in its best interests. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if that is determined by the Source Selection Authority to be necessary.

The technical evaluation team shall identify significant strengths, strengths, significant weakness, weaknesses and deficiencies in each proposal and assign a rating of Outstanding/Very Low Risk, Good/Low Risk, Acceptable/No

Worse than Moderate Risk, Marginal/High Risk, or Unacceptable in response to the “Technical Approach” factor. A

Relevancy and Confidence Assessment rating will be assigning to the “Past Performance” factor. A significant strength is an aspect of an offerors proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably enhances the merit of that offeror’s proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance by that offeror. A strength is an aspect of the offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A deficiency is 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. A risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

Each proposal should be submitted in a format that is representative of the items to be evaluated in the order that they are described below.

Relative Importance of Phase I Evaluation Factors. For Phase I evaluation purposes, Technical Approach is significantly more important than Past Performance.

E. NON-PRICING PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

In accordance with FAR 36.301, the following Phase I factors will be considered when evaluating the proposals:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 1:Technical Approach: The evaluation for the Factor 1 Technical Approach consist of two components:

1 - Management Approach, and 2 - Prior Experience. These are not sub-factors or elements. The two components are approximately equal in importance to each other and the entire Factor 1 will be evaluated in its entirety, resulting in an assignment of a single Technical Approach rating for each Offeror.

1 – Management Approach

Proposal Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work for the project and describes the Offeror’s approach to completing the work. The Offeror’s narrative shall identify all major scope components of the project, including the critical components of the project. Additionally, the

Offeror’s narrative shall include a discussion of a planned technical approach to the project that not only demonstrates an understanding of the phasing, local labor market, laws, base access, and other anticipated challenges, but that also provides benefit to the Government. The Offeror should demonstrate a clear understanding of shipping and logistics (air, land, and sea), local labor and subcontractor markets, and the unique requirements associated with designing and constructing pile supported pier.

The narrative shall specifically address the following:

a. Licensing: The Offeror shall include, with its narrative, proof of current Bahraini business licensure (photocopy of license in the Offeror’s name), or alternatively, Offeror shall describe the process to gain licensure in Bahrain and provide a detailed description of Offeror’s plan to obtain licensure to ensure construction start in accordance with your submitted schedule.

b. Organization: The Offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage the project. The Offeror shall discuss its proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to the staff for each position. The Offeror shall include a discussion of how work flows through the organization, including the design team and any major subcontractors, as described below. The Offeror shall also identify how it plans to integrate the design team into the organization for the project, and explain what role the design team will play in the decision-making process for the project. The Offeror shall also include an organizational chart, which, along with the accompanying narrative, shows the relationship between the Offeror, sub-contractors, major subcontractors, QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the Offeror must clearly state the roles of any Joint Venture partners and major subcontractors (those performing 20% or more of the total Dollar value of the project) in its discussion of the Organization aspect, considering the requirement set forth in FAR 52.236-1 that the Offeror self-perform at least 20% of the total amount of work on this contract. The Offeror must include in its proposal a Letter of Commitment from any major subcontractor. For those subcontractors for which the Offeror has submitted a Letter of Commitment, the Offeror may not change subcontractors without prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

c. Design Quality Control: The Offeror shall describe in detail its design quality control approach. The Offeror must demonstrate how its design quality control plan will reduce risk of unsuccessful performance.

The management approach portion of the Offeror’s proposal will be limited to fifteen pages in length, not including the project organization and staffing chart(s) or letters of commitment; any pages beyond fifteen will not be evaluated and will be ignored for evaluation purpose.

Evaluation Procedures:

The Government will evaluate proposals under Management Approach to determine the completeness and feasibility of the Offeror’s management approach; the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements specified in the RFP; and the level of risk of unsuccessful performance. The Government will further evaluate proposals based on the following specific additional aspects:

a. Licensing: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to gain licensure to work in Bahrain. The evaluation will consider the Offeror’s proof of current licensure, or the completeness, reasonableness, feasibility, and the timeline of the Offeror’s plan to gain licensure in Bahrain. Greater weight will be given to Offerors who currently possess a

Bahrain business license in the Offeror’s name, as shown in the solicitation, and submit a copy of the business license for verification.

b. Organization: The Government will evaluate the extent to which an Offeror’s plan for organization includes well-defined organization and lines of authority, responsibility, communication, integration of design team, and tracking of schedules. The Government will also evaluate how clearly the Offeror describes its organization structure for this project, including the relationship between the Offeror’s home office and site office (the office which is directly responsible for execution of this project) and USACE. In its evaluation, the Government will consider the extent to which the organization chart includes titles and explanations of the major responsibilities and authorities for key personnel in the home office, support office and site offices, as well as the extent to which the Offeror explains the proposed project staffing and how the work effort will be effectively managed. The evaluation will consider how clearly the Offeror identifies where key personnel are located and whether these positions will be filled by the prime contractor or their subcontractor’s personnel, as well as the extent to which the Offeror addressed the respective roles of the Joint Venture partners, if applicable. Greater weight will be given to Offerors who have effectively demonstrated an organizational structure, process, and procedures that minimize the risk of unsuccessful performance to the Government (for example, lower risk structure may show a majority of work self-performed by prime contractor versus a higher risk structure, which may include a prime contractor managing multiple subcontractors).

c. Design Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the

Offeror’s understanding of the contractual requirements associated with design quality control. The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the offeror’s design quality control plan.

2 – Prior Experience

The Offeror shall provide a narrative that outlines how its experience on prior projects will positively impact its performance of the work contemplated by this solicitation. Specifically, the Offeror shall explain how its prior experience handling those design or construction challenges that are frequently prevalent in Bahrain will enable it to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

The Offeror’s narrative shall discuss its experience in addressing the following challenges:

• Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

• Application of United States and foreign laws that affect contract performance.

• Procurement and shipping of long lead items.

• Obtaining access to work locations, such as obtaining base access.

• Coordination with host nation authorities during contract performance.

• Compliance with contractual, administrative, and other Combatting Trafficking in

Persons requirements.

The Offeror may also address its experience in areas other than the areas outlined above, so long as such experience demonstrates how the Offeror’s prior experience will enable it to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation, in the construction environment of Bahrain. As part of its narrative, the Offeror should address those process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address those design and construction challenges.

The Offeror may highlight any experience that it has gained, regardless of the date of the project on which this experience was gained or such project’s similarity to the scope, magnitude, or location of the work contemplated by this solicitation. For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the Offeror’s prior experience in dealing with design and construction challenges, and not on those project metrics required to conduct a past performance relevancy evaluation. A separate project relevancy analysis will be completed under the Past

Performance factor.

If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror may provide experience on projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner for each project identified in the Offeror’s narrative, the Offeror shall provide, on a separate page

(or pages), the contract number, customer name, project name, and date of completion. The prior experience narrative will be limited to five pages in length. The separate page (or pages) indicating project numbers, customer names, etc. will not be included in the five page limitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative for the degree to which the Offeror possesses experience that will enable it to successfully perform the work contemplated by the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the experience presented and its application to the work required by the solicitation, to determine whether the experience offered appreciably increases the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the work contemplated by the solicitation.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors that present narratives demonstrating that the Offeror has a wide breadth of experience dealing with those design or construction challenges that are frequently prevalent in Bahrain.

Adjectival Ratings and Definitions: Technical Approach

The evaluations of the Offeror’s proposal for Management Approach and Prior Experience will be evaluated in its entirety to result in an assignment of a single Technical Approach rating for each Offeror. The following ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates exceptional experience and approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates thorough experience and approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates adequate experience and 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.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate experience and approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

PHASE I – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated relevant record of performance. There are two components of the past performance evaluation: Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance and Confidence

Assessment of Relevant Past Performance.

Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “Relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope, and similar cost magnitude as required by the solicitation.

A “Recently Completed” project is defined as project which (1) has been completed within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 50% complete.

“Similar Scope” is defined as the design or construction of pile supported pier.

“Similar Cost Magnitude” is defined for the purposes of this evaluation as a project with a total value of at least $20 million.

The Offeror shall submit relevant project experience using the Design Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A) and Offerors Prime Construction Experience Information Sheet (Attachment B) and The Offeror shall include a project description on the Experience Information Sheet that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, and must state the specific type of work performed for each project listed. The Offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Experience Information

Sheet. If the Offeror is not able to provide English-speaking references, the Offeror must identify the language spoken for non-English-speaking references.

When submitting relevant project experience for consideration, the Offeror is limited to (a) at least one but no more than three relevant projects that have been performed by the Offeror, and (b) at least one but no more than three relevant design projects that have been performed by the design team or design firm designated in the Management

Approach component of the Technical Approach factor. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror may count projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the Offeror. The Government will consider the relevant past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the relevant past performance information for the JV-Offeror, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the Offeror’s proposal describes the role of each JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the Offeror’s proposal clearly identifies the role of each JV partner on this project in such a way as to demonstrate that the partners’ previous experience is relevant to the role each partner will be performing on this project. The Government will not consider the past performance of any subcontractor.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine the extent of the Offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to the project.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors for each relevant project evaluated which includes both design and construction of pile supported pier.

Greater weight will be given to Offerors for each relevant project evaluated which is performed in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, U.A.E., Uzbekistan, or Yemen.

For JVs, greater weight will be given for each relevant project where the JV partners were the same as the JV

Offeror.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record for projects submitted by the Offeror by reviewing relevant Government databases or other DoD or Government appraisal systems. The Government reserves the right to contact and interview the references as included in the Experience Information Sheets, or by any other means available in order to verify past performance information. The Government reserves the right to exclude experience that cannot be verified through the email point of contact included on the Offeror’s Experience Information Sheets.

The email point-of-contact information provided should reflect association with the firm noted on the experience form.

Confidence Assessment of Relevant Past Performance

The Offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment C) for each relevant project submitted under Factor 2 – Past Performance. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed

PPQ from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ (including blocks 5 through 8), which will provide the contract and client information necessary to conduct an assessment.

The Offeror should follow up with clients to ensure that PPQ submissions are in accordance with the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Diane deLathouder at Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil prior to the 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.

FALISIFIED PPQs MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR TO THE

APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

mailto:Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil

In its confidence assessment, the Government may contact and interview the references included in the Experience

Information Sheets submitted under the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance. The Offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the Offeror’s past performance for the applicable project submitted and may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the Offeror’s performance, including: quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such elements as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, and warranty work. The Offeror should also provide references that are independent and willing and available to answer questions.

The Offeror should also ensure that each reference is notified that he/she may be contacted for the purposes of the evaluation. The Government may contact and interview references provided, and additionally reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the reference provided, if the reference is not available.

The Offeror may provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted under the Relevancy Assessment of Experience.

In addition to the Experience Information Sheets and Experience Overview Sheets and PPQs, the Offeror is permitted to submit DD Form 2626 (CCASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for relevant projects submitted under the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance. The Offeror should not, however, submit additional pieces of past performance information (such as certificates or other awards), as this information will not be evaluated. Only the past performance information submitted by the offeror for those projects submitted under the

Experience component will be considered for evaluation. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the offeror.

In addition to the information provided by the Offeror and its references, the Government may review any other sources of information for and the purposes of this evaluation. 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), 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), or the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The Government also reserves the right to contact Government field representatives, or any other sources deemed appropriate to evaluate current and past performance.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete current and past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to the project, based on the past performance information relied upon. Documented results from PPQs, CCASS, CPAR reports, interviews, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. For this evaluation, the information gathered that pertains to relevant project experience, as defined in the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance of this factor, will be considered in the confidence assessment for the purposes of assigning a rating under Factor 2 – Past Performance.

Adjectival Ratings and Definitions: Past Performance

There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the RFP.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed the relevant projects.

The Government’s assessment under the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance is a significant contributor to the final Past Performance rating; however, it is not a formal rating in and of itself. The resulting assessment conclusions for the Relevancy Assessment of Past Performance will be considered for the purposes of assessing the quality of performance on prior contracts under the Confidence Assessment of Past Performance; evaluations under the Past Performance factor will result in the assignment of a single performance confidence rating for each offeror.

This is the only formal “rating” applied for this factor.

Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect to the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the RFP. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance.

The evaluation team shall use the terms described in the table below in determining relevancy:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on both the confidence assessment and overall rating assigned for Factor 2 – Past Performance than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to arrive at a single performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below by determining how well the offeror performed in the relevant projects submitted under this factor. The Government will consider the age and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. 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.

The Government places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror. 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 below.

The…