W912ER-16-R-0010_Amend_1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is issued to remove p. 224 - 238 from the solicitation. Listed members on the previously posted Source Selection chart w ill be changed. Amendment 2 w ill be forthcoming to address questions answ ered w ith see Amendment 1 in ProjNet.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Sep-2016

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 W912ER-16-R-0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Aug-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

22-Sep-2016

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT, CETAM-CT

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

W912ER 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ER-16-R-0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will award this contract to the offeror that provides the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s proposal meets all the solicitation requirements. An award will be made to the lowest priced offer presented by a responsible offeror whose offer conforms to all the solicitation requirements, and is determined to be technically acceptable.

To be considered for award, an offeror must satisfy all the requirements described in the evaluation criteria, as well as all other solicitation requirements. All Non Price Factors will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis. All Non Price Factors I, II, III and IV must receive an evaluation of “Acceptable” in order for a proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

B. FACTORS AND TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is lowest price, technically acceptable based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor I: AISA License Factor II: Experience Factor III: Past Performance Factor IV: Management and Technical Capability Factor V: Price

FACTOR I: AISA LICENSE

The Offeror shall provide a copy of its current, valid, signed and approved Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA) License. The name of the entity on the AISA license must match the name of the Offeror on its proposal. In the event of a Joint Venture, the AISA License must be in the name of the Joint Venture. To be considered for award, the license must have a date that is current and valid through the projected time of contract award.

Offerors shall submit a copy of their AISA License, not to exceed 5 pages in length. NOTE:

Pages that exceed the required page limitation will not be evaluated. Additional pages will be removed from the back of the proposal, and will not be evaluated by the Government.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR I: AISA License The offeror will show that it has have a valid AISA license by providing a copy of the license with its proposal. Production of a verifiable copy of a valid AISA license will entitle offerors to a rating of “Acceptable” for this factor. To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the AISA license factor.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS FOR FACTOR I: AISA

Factor I, AISA License

ADJECTIVE RATING DEFINITIONS

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR II: EXPERIENCE

The Offeror shall provide documentation identifying no less than two contracts but no more than five contracts involving a variety of services that are similar to the types of services contemplated by this solicitation as described in the performance work statement (PWS) that have been performed by the Offeror within the last five years either as a prime or subcontractor.

The experience submission shall show that the offeror has performed each of the following functions: project and program management, contract administration, project engineering, quality assurance and administrative functions. At least two of the contracts shall be valued at $15 million or more and at least one of the two contracts shall have been performed in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR). If an Offeror is a joint venture or partnership, then it shall explain in detail how the Experience Factor is met in the aggregate through the contributions of all members of the joint venture or partnership. The experience submittal shall include explanation of the services rendered on the identified contracts, including how those services were same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified in this solicitation. At least two of the contracts identified should include those where the offeror self-performed a minimum of 50% of the work. Contractor organizations that have not performed at least two relevant contracts in the last five years valued at $15 million or more each (one of which must have been performed in the CENTCOM AOR), or who fail to provide adequate explanation of the similarity of services rendered to those identified in the PWS for this contract, will be given an unacceptable rating. There is a 20 single pages or 10 double sided pages limit on this factor.

Contracts with any organization, government or commercial, may be included if the Offeror concludes that the work was similar to that in this solicitation, and provides adequate description of that similarity. Federal Government contracts are of primary interest, but contracts with state and local governments and commercial contracts may be included. This list shall demonstrate the principal type of work performed and shall include the following information:

Contract number, dates the contract was started and date of completion or current progress percentage completed

Description of services of the prime contract Whether performed as a Prime or Subcontractor The percentage of work performed directly by the contractor Contract type Location(s) of the services provided Description of the Offeror’s role and activities during the provision of services Technical or other challenges associated with provision of the services and what the

Offeror did to overcome the challenges

Description of whether or not the contract was completed in accordance with the terms (schedule, quality, and budget)

If the Offeror was a prime contractor on the contract, a listing of all subcontractors used on each contract and the percentage of the subcontractor’s involvement. If the experience was accomplished as a subcontractor, then the Offeror shall indicate the percentage of the contract performed and the service or work actually performed by the Offeror

Dollar value of the prime contract Dollar value of work actually performed by the prime or subcontractor or joint venture member Point of contact (POC) information for the contract work presented shall be provided, including names of knowledgeable client or customer representatives, with email or facsimile numbers provided. If the provided information is incorrect when verified with the POC, that is grounds for a rating of unacceptable. Information that cannot be independently verified through a POC, or through existing TAM performance information such as PPIRS or CPARS, may be ruled ineligible for consideration under this factor by the Contracting Officer.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR II: EXPERIENCE

Proposals will be evaluated to determine experience of the offeror’s team for relevant types of projects. It should be presented in as much detail as practicable within the page limits. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will not search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of providing thorough and complete experience information remains with the Offeror. Proposals that do not contain the required information will risk an “Unacceptable” rating by the Government. Contractor organizations that have not self-performed a minimum of 50% of the work of at least two relevant contracts in the last five years valued at $15 million or more each (one of which must have been performed in the CENTCOM AOR) or who fail to provide adequate explanation of the similarity of services rendered to those identified in the PWS for this contract, will be given an unacceptable rating.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS FOR FACTOR II: EXPERIENCE

Factor II, Experience

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR III: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation. There is no page limitation on past performance.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth herein.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors.

c. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror’s past performance is rated as “unknown” (neutral) having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation. In the context of acceptability/non-acceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable” for this factor.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for each of the projects submitted for Factor II. The offeror should include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the Offeror was rated. 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.

A PPQ or DD Form 2626 – Contractor Performance Assessment Report shall be submitted for each project. If offerors are unable to obtain a completed PPQ for a project, they must at a minimum complete the client contact information on the first page of the PPQ to allow the Government the ability to attempt to contact the client should they so choose. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to sub-contractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conformance to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

The offeror should not submit other past performance information, including awards, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition, as they will not be evaluated. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating current and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the offeror’s Dun & Bradstreet Report, Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact government field representatives, or any sources they deem appropriate.

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.

If an Offeror is a joint venture or partnership, information should be presented for each partner in the joint venture or partnership. Although the Government prefers all members of a joint venture or partnership to have satisfied or excelled in all the above-indicated areas pertaining to their past performance, the Government will consider the complementary aspects of the separate participants in a joint venture or partnership, by evaluating the joint venture or partnership as a whole.

The offeror must provide proof of registration in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) and must provide the JCCS ID number for the Offeror and any subcontractor. The Contract Specialist will search the JCCS database using the JCCS Company ID number supplied by the vendor to determine eligibility. If an offeror is not registered in JCCS they will be ineligible for award. Use of a subcontractor who is not registered in JCCS is not permitted.

Information on JCCS registration is available at: https://www.jccs.gov/.

The criteria for recent and relevancy will come from the information provided by the Contractor below:

Contract number, dates the contract was started and date of completion or current progress percentage completed

Description of services of the prime contract Whether performed as a Prime or Subcontractor The percentage of work performed directly by the contractor Contract type Location(s) of the services provided Description of the Offeror’s role and activities during the provision of services Technical or other challenges associated with provision of the services and what the

Offeror did to overcome the challenges Description of whether or not the contract was completed in accordance with the terms

(schedule, quality, and budget) If the Offeror was a prime contractor on the contract, a listing of all subcontractors used on each contract and the percentage of the subcontractor’s involvement. If the experience was accomplished as a subcontractor, then the Offeror shall indicate the percentage of the contract performed and the service or work actually performed by the Offeror

Dollar value of the prime contract

Dollar value of work actually performed by the prime or subcontractor or joint venture member

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR III, PAST PERFORMANCE

Recency and relevancy will be determined by self-performance of at least 50% of two relevant contracts in the last five years valued at $15 million or more each (one of which must have been performed in the CENTCOM AOR). The past performance evaluation will allow the government to determine how well the offeror performed on prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does 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 gathers information on how well the offeror performed.

To be considered acceptable for this factor, an offeror must be rated satisfactory or above on all recent and relevant contracts.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Samantha Adato at Samantha.adato@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date.

The combination of relevancy and recency, and performance documented by the information collected by the Government, will result in one of the following ratings:

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (See note below.).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonable assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and in the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

ATTACHMENT A

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

ATTACHMENT B

FACTOR IV: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

In order for the Offeror’s management and technical approach proposal to be strictly evaluated on the merit of the material submitted, no contractual pricing information shall be included in this factor. If pricing information is included in this factor, then the proposal will be deemed materially deficient and will not be eligible for award unless the Contracting Officer determines that discussions will be held with eligible Offerors. This factor is limited to 20 single-sided or 10 double-sided pages.

Management and Technical volume shall be precise, factual, complete and descriptive in sufficient detail to allow the Government to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and qualifications to perform the required services. The management and technical evaluation factor is provided in Section M.

The Management and Technical Capability shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement. Statements that the Offeror understands, can or shall comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Only data submitted with this proposal will be considered by the Government.

The management discussion section of the Management Technical Capability proposal shall consist of the following element and shall provide a response to each item.

Offerors shall include the following in its Management and Technical Approach:

The Offeror shall provide the organizational structure of the Offeror’s proposed team, to include the proposed prime contractor, joint venture, and major subcontractors, for this contract as outlined in the five subparagraphs listed below.

o A diagrammed Organizational Chart shall be provided, which indicates how this organization fits into the Offeror’s overall corporate structure and how they will interact with their subcontractors and with USACE.

o The Offeror shall provide signed Letter(s) of Commitment from major subcontractors, subcontracted key personnel and the Offeror’s key personnel who are proposed to work on this contract that, in the event of an award to the Offeror, such entity/individual is firmly committed to performance on the contract. Offerors shall not include any qualifications to this commitment, such as a statement that the parties are still negotiating the terms of their agreement.

o The Offeror shall provide a technical approach to the PWS requirements to convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror fully understands the methodology and scope of services outlined in the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe the manner in which the Offeror proposes meeting all the requirements of the PWS. The technical approach shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of all the requirements. Statements that the Offeror understands, can or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.);

statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Only data submitted with this proposal shall be considered by the Government.

o The Offeror shall describe in clear detail how it intends to recruit, hire and train contractor personnel in accordance with PWS paragraph 7.0.

o The Offeror shall also demonstrate its capability to perform multiple concurrent services in various, geographically dispersed locations in the same country within the CENTCOM AOR.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR IV: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY

Proposals will be evaluated to determine experience of the offeror’s team for relevant types of projects. It should be presented in as much detail as practicable within the page limits. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will not search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of providing thorough complete management and technical capability information remains with the Offeror. Proposals that do not contain the required information identified above will risk an “Unacceptable” rating by the Government.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS FOR FACTOR IV: Management and Technical Capability

Factor IV, Management and Technical Capability

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR V: PRICE

Only firm-fixed price proposals will be considered. Other types of offers, or offers that are conditional in nature, will not be considered for the contract award unless corrected by means of discussion or some other authorized means. Price Offers will not be numerically scored or assigned an adjective rating to the price factor of completeness or reasonableness. The Government will seek to identify performance risks and weaknesses associated with the proposed price offers, to include unbalanced prices. This section does not have a page limit.

Completeness is the degree to which an Offeror has priced all aspects of the work to be performed as defined by the Performance Work Statements, Section B and Price Breakdown Worksheet. Failure to address significant portions of the non-pricing proposal in the price proposal may constitute an incomplete price submission and may result in rejection of the proposal.

Reasonableness is determined by comparing an Offeror’s proposed prices as provided on the Price Breakdown Worksheet against the Government’s estimated prices as contained within the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) (or if applicable, the revised government estimate (RGE)) or by comparison with the prices proposed by other Offerors or other fair market prices.

(A revision to an IGE after the receipt and opening of price proposals constitutes its reclassification as a RGE. At that point in time, the independence of a revised IGE is lost.) To the degree that the prices proposed by the various Offerors merit such action, those proposed prices, or portions of them, may be determined suitable for determining the market price of the solicitation project or portions thereof.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR V: PRICE

Price shall include the following documents (in the order listed):

Standard Form 33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award Cover Sheet) – Offeror shall complete boxes 12-18 of the SF33 and submit as the first page of Factor V. The acceptance period entered in box 12 of SF33 by the Offeror shall be 120 calendar days from the date specified in the solicitation. Include Offeror’s DUNS Number and CAGE Code to Block 15. The person signing the SF33 must have the authority to commit the Offeror to all of the provisions of the proposal, fully recognizing that the Government has the right, by terms of the solicitation, to make an award without further discussion if it so elects.

Cost/ Price Factor Evaluation Ratings. Cost/Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation. Cost/Price is not scored; rather, each offeror's cost will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness of the proposed contract cost.

Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed cost/price by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost/price with proposal scope and effort. For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. Cost realism evaluation includes a review of the overall costs in the offeror's proposal to determine:

If costs are realistic for the work proposed;

If costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirements;

Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost/price for the option periods by assessing the acceptability of the offeror's methodology used in developing the cost/price estimates. For the cost to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an offeror to perform the contract requirements.

Completeness. Cost/price proposals shall be evaluated for completeness by assessing the responsiveness of the proposed cost/price, by assessing the level of detail of the offeror-provided cost data for all requirements in the PWS and assessing the traceability of estimates. For the cost data to be complete, the offeror, or its subcontractors, must provide all the data necessary to support the offer. The amount of data needed may vary depending on the requirements.

The Offeror shall provide a Basis of Estimate (BOE) to support the Firm Fixed CLIN/SLIN pricing. The Offeror shall provide a narrative after the BOE that identifies each cost component with its associated value for the Cost Reimbursement CLIN/SLIN.

Bid Schedule, to include the Price Breakdown Worksheet (PBW). The Bid Schedule pricing shall equal the pricing on the PBW. Offeror’s proposal and supporting BOE/narrative shall be provided in hard copy and CD ROM using Excel file formats. If variation in content between the paper copy and the electronic copy is noted, the paper copy shall be considered the submitted proposal. The Offeror shall not alter the Government provided proposal file formats and shall provide the completed worksheet in live Excel format. Offerors may provide live Excel spreadsheets to support the proposed pricing in the PBW and/or BOE/narrative should the Offeror elect to do so.

Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors – Provide the completed Section K. The Offeror’s ORCA record may be provided, but it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all of the items listed under Section K are submitted with its proposal.

Joint Venture/Teaming Agreements/Mentor-Protégé Agreements and approvals (if applicable) Financial Capability – In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “…contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104. FAR 9.104(a) requires that a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, Offerors shall be required to provide the following information:

o Proof of Financial Capability and Stability - Offerors, including team members, are required to submit copies of their most recent annual reports or SEC 10K form (if applicable), three (3) years of audited financial statements (balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement with auditor opinion), information and supporting documentation of lines or credit or guarantees from parent company, recent copies of Dun and Bradstreet (D&B)/Standard & Poor’s (S&P) reports (if applicable), the number of years the firm has been in business, a copy of the firm’s current credit report(s) and the name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

o Bankruptcy - Offeror shall include a statement in its pricing proposal as to whether the Offeror is in Bankruptcy proceedings or not, or is about to undergo bankruptcy proceedings. Offeror shall disclose any other information which could reasonably call into question the responsibility of the Offeror to perform this contract.

o A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and the name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

o A self-certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding twelve month period exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract;

and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three-year period o If the price is not complete and reasonable that is grounds to remove an offeror from the competition, even if they are the lowest offeror.

Proposal Submission Requirements.

1. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences.

Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Therefore, the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a. The Proposal shall be typed and submitted in English.

b. Proposal shall be organized, concise and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated below. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor and sub-factor (if applicable) shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. Proposals must be sent in five separate volumes. Each volume shall be contained within a separate binder. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime offeror on the binder cover.

Each volume shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number. Do not assume that because you have had similar awards with the Federal Government, that the reviewer knows of your performance under such agreements and that assumptions will be made regarding your proposal based on that knowledge. Any proposals received in response to this solicitation will be reviewed strictly as submitted in accordance with the proposal submittal instructions in Section L and the evaluation criteria specified in Section M. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

d. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct and complete include names of the points of contact, email address, fax number, and telephone number.

e. Price Breakdown Worksheet and Bid Schedule shall be completed in full, including all option items.

f. Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through the Bidder Inquiry System, if instructions are not understood.

g. Offerors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals. All questions and concerns shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer or his/her point of contract through the Bidder Inquiry System.

h. The Government will not pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal, or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

Proposal Format. Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be submitted in the following format:

Volume I – AISA License, 5 single pages Volume II – Experience Factor, 20 single pages or 10 double sided Volume III – Past Performance, No page limitation Volume IV - Management and Technical Capability Factor, 20 single sided or 10 double sided pages Volume V - Price Factor, No page limitation

b. Page formatting and restrictions: The proposal shall be typed in Times New Roman font type and font size 12 for text pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches for text pages, and a maximum of 11 x 17 inches for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings; font type size shall be a minimum of 10 for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings.

Pages larger than 8.5 x 11 inches shall count as two pages for determining page limits. Page margins shall be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume (e.g., Volume I – 1, Volume I – 2, Volume I – 3, etc.).

Proposal Submission.

Electronic proposals (facsimile, email, etc) are not authorized. Proposals shall be sent via FedEx, UPS, DHL or delivered by hand to:

US Army Corps of Engineers – Middle East District Attn: Samantha Adato

W912ER-16-R-0010

201 Prince Frederick Drive Winchester, VA 22602

Proposals sent by USPS to:

US Army Corps of Engineers – Middle East District Attn: Samantha Adato

W912ER-16-R-0010

PO Box 2250 Winchester, VA 22604

It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure that the proposal is received on or before the closing date and time of the solicitation.

Inquiries. Inquiries regarding the solicitation shall be submitted as follows:

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

a. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self register into the system. To self-register, go to the aforementioned web page and click on the BID tab. Select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the Bidder Inquiry Key for this solicitation listed below, your email address, and then click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on the next screen is correct and click continue.

b. From this page, you may view all bidder inquiries or add a new inquiry.

c. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their questions via email, followed by an answer to their questions after it has been processed by our technical team. Amendments will not be released for the sole purpose of providing answers to questions that are submitted through ProjNet. Amendments will be released only if answers to questions require changes to this solicitation.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected. The Bidder Inquiry Key is case sensitive.

d. The Solicitation Number is: W912ER-16-R-0010 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 7976N6-V2Z4SU

2. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries after TBD in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

3. Offerors are requested to review the solicitation package in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

4. The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800- 428-HELP (1-800-428-4357). Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

SECTION III

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. EVALUATION ORGANIZATION. The evaluation and selection of the successful offeror will be performed by the following organizational elements:

1. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

3. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS.

1. Source Selection Authority. The SSA is the individual designated to make the best value decision. The SSA shall:

a. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

b. Appoint the chairpersons for the SSEB and, when used, the SSAC.

c. Ensure that personnel appointed to the SST are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

d. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS 203.170(a).

e. Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules.

The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

f. Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 (formerly 41 U.S.C., Section 423), and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information. Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement. Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements (from both Government members/advisors and non-Government team advisors) are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See CFR 2635).

g. Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

h. Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in Section M (or a non-Uniform Contract Format (UCF) solicitation).

i. Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

2. Source Selection Evaluation Board. Government personnel assigned to the SSEB shall consider this duty as their primary responsibility. Their source selection assignment shall take priority over other work assignments.

a. The SSEB Chairperson shall:

1. Review all aspects of all proposals, and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of competitive proposals in an impartial and equitable manner.

2. Assure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

3. Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

4. Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

5. Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, allowed, and approved.

6. Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

7. Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

8. Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

9. Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

10. Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

11. Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

12. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSAC and SSA.

13. Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.

14. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and the time assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

15. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

16. Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

17. Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA or the SSAC, if the SSAC is designated as the interface between the SSEB and SSA.

18. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

b. The SSEB members shall:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the RFP requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

2. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

3. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

4. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

5. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

6. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

7. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

3. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection. The PCO shall:

a. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and advise and assist the SSA in the execution of his/her responsibilities and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

b. Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the RFP before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (FAR 7.503 and 37.205)

c. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information.

Approve access to or release of source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

d. Maintain the documents and source selection evaluation records.

e. Release the final RFP only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

f. Serve as the single point of contact for all RFP-related inquiries from actual or prospective offerors.

g. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306.

h. With the approval of the SSA, establish the competitive range and enter into discussions.

i. Brief the SSAC/SSA as requested.

j. Respond to special instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

k. Award the contract.

l. Chair all required debriefings.

SECTION IV

EVALUATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

A. KEY MILESTONES. The source selection process will follow the sequence outlined below:

1. Issue RFP

2. Receive Proposals

3. Conduct Initial Evaluation

4. Present Findings to SSA

5. Establish Competitive Range

6. Conduct Discussions

7. Conduct Interim Evaluation

8. Present Findings to SSAC/SSA

9. Revise/Reaffirm Competitive Range

10. Request and Receive Final Proposal Revisions

11. Conduct Final Evaluation

12. Present Findings to SSAC/SSA

13. SSAC Written Comparative Analysis and Award Recommendation

14. SSA Decision

15. CRB Peer Review

16. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors

B. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating. The descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal.

2. Factor Rating Definitions. SSEB will use a common set of adjectival ratings to evaluate non- Cost/Price Factors other than Past Performance. Keep in mind that mere promises to comply with contractual requirements are insufficient basis for a favorable rating; evidence is required in support of any statements relating to promised performance. Also, the chosen adjectival rating must be supported by the evaluator’s narrative reason(s) for the choice. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP.

C. RATING METHOD

1. Rating Package. Each individual evaluating a factor of the offeror’s proposal will receive a rating package containing the following:

a. Evaluation Policies and Procedures;

b. Basis for Award, Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Approach;

c. Proposal Instructions;

d. Evaluation Forms ; or

e. Past Performance Evaluation forms , as appropriate;

f. Guidelines for writing clarifications and discussion issues;

g. Evaluation Notice (EN) form ; and,

h. Request for Proposal (RFP).

2. Rating Structure. The non-cost factors will be evaluated and rated based upon the general and specific instructions supplied in Section IV of this Plan. The ratings will be used for the final evaluation. The Cost/Price factor, while evaluated for fairness and reasonableness (including findings), will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1. All proposals will be received by the PCO or designee not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. Upon receipt of proposals the PCO or designee should conduct an initial screening to ascertain that each offeror has submitted all of the required information, including electronic media, in the quantities and format specified in the RFP. The PCO will retain the original of the offerors proposals and associated data. The SSEB Chairperson will control all copies of the offerors’ proposals and other associated data.

2. Upon receipt of proposals, evaluators will read their applicable section to gain an understanding of the level of the information and determine if errors, omissions or a need for clarification exists. These will be reported to the respective Factor Chairperson and the SSEB Chairperson. The SSEB Chairperson will notify the Contracting Officer of such issues.

3. Upon completion of their evaluations, the SSEB teams will assign the appropriate rating to each factor as set forth above upon reaching consensus as to the findings and the ratings.