W912ER-16-R-0029.pdf

PROJECT TITLE: P-960 Triton Operational Facility, United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Design Build - Tw o-Step Design and Construction of the P-960 Triton Operations Facilty at UAE

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

22-Aug-2016

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

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 _______1 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________929 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________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 specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________26 Sep 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

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

04:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912ER-16-R-0029 81

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-0029

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

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

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 To Be Determined at Phase-Two RFP

FFP

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

NET AMT

INCORPORATE PROPOSAL

1. 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.

2. 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

BASIS FOR AWARD

PHASE ONE: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Qualification proposals are requested under Phase One in which the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase Two from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract.

B. QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTENT, AND FORMAT

The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any responses to this solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to offerors are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation. Any and all amendments to the solicitation will be issued electronically at the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov). It is an offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this solicitation and acknowledge any and all amendments in their proposal submission.

Offerors should not modify the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal or add conditions or qualifications to their offers. Should an offeror include terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, that offeror may be determined to be ineligible for award. Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved prior to submission of an offer.

References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of an offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors that include information in their proposals they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall clearly mark their proposals in accordance with the instructions at FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data.

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 an offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for Phase Two selection, unless the Government determined to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offeror(s) involved can be made. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements that are annotated with the words “should” or “may” can result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings, and may have a significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award. Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. A proposal without the minimum content may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of an offeror.

All information intended to be evaluated as part of the qualification proposal shall be submitted within the qualification proposal. Do not include references to material or information not found within the qualification proposal. Referencing information not found within the qualification proposal could lead to an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable if materially incomplete in any aspect.

Pricing information is not required for and shall not be submitted in Phase One.

a. COVER PAGE: A cover page shall appear at the beginning of each volume and, at a minimum, shall consist of the following information:

i. Solicitation number/Phase One

ii. Offeror’s name, physical mailing addresses, telephone number, and email address of the official having the authority to bind the offeror contractually.

iii. Offeror’s DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax ID (TIN)

b. TABLE OF CONTENTS: A table of contents shall be placed in each volume and shall identify major areas by title, page numbers, and volume location.

c. VOLUME I QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s qualification proposal is described under Basis of Phase One Evaluation. Do not submit pricing information in the qualification proposal.

i. Factor 1: Technical Approach

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

iii. Subcontractor Letters of Commitment, where applicable.

d. VOLUME II REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATION: Do not submit pricing information.

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

ii. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Attachment A).

__If the offeror is a corporation, completed Corporate Certificate; OR

__If the offeror is a partnership, completed Authority to Bind Partnership and a copy of the Partnership Agreement; OR

__If the offeror is a joint venture, completed Corporate Certificate for each member of the joint venture and a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

iii. Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00 45 00).

Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct, and complete, including names of points of contact, email addresses, and telephone numbers.

The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified within each evaluation factor. Elaborately prepared proposals are not required, and any material in excess of what is requested, such as corporate marketing information, will not be considered.

Failing to submit or completely fill out the solicitation attachments found at Appendix D may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions are not understood.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT

a. Proposals must be typed and submitted in English. Proposals submitted in a language other than English are unacceptable. Letters of Commitment, partnership agreements or joint venture agreements, if not written in English, must be accompanied by an English translated copy with a signed statement, in English, by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each JV partner that the English translation is true and correct.

b. An offeror’s proposal must be include an (1) original and two (2) copies of both volumes along with one (1) CD which must contain all files in an Adobe portable document format (PDF). The Original and each copy must be individually bound, typically in a standard three ring binder or similar book with tabs or separators dividing each of the sections noted above.

c. An offeror’s qualification proposal and representation and certification information must be submitted as two separate volumes (PDF files) as identified in Section 00 21 00, paragraph B.1, Proposal Content. Page limits, if stipulated must be adhered to. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified herein. Proposals shall be sized to print on 8 1/2” x 11” paper (11” X 17” for drawings). Margins shall be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”), font face shall be Times New Roman or Arial, and font size shall be no smaller than 10 point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page or a table of contents, are not included in the page limitation. Corporate certificates, Joint venture agreements, Partnership agreements and Letters of Commitment are also not included in page limitations.

d. Offerors shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of their proposals: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Do not disclose any source selection information to any unauthorized person.”

e. All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. In order to reduce proposal size, the Offeror must confine the proposal to required information sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. Each volume of the proposal must contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion. Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Electronic proposals (facsimile, email etc.) are not permitted unless otherwise requested by the Contracting Officer.

In the event that electronic proposals are requested, it is an offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the Government emailing system by the date and time of the proposal deadline, e.g., undeliverable messages due to an offeror’s proposal size is not the responsibility of the Government.

Proposals are due to the following addresses no later than the specified date and time in Block 13 of the SF1442 and may be delivered via U.S. Mail, Commercial Carrier (FedEx, UPS, etc.) or deliver by hand:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT - CETAM-CT-EA

ATTN: MARISSA LOUDEN/W912ER-16-R-0029

201 Prince Frederick Drive / 340 N. Pleasant Valley Road, Unit

WINCHESTER, VA 22602

Late Proposals: Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the Government 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, and 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.

D. SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

1. 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 bidders to post questions regarding the solicitation and view all questions by other bidders and responses by USACE. Bidder Inquiry can be accessed through ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

a. Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

b. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question(s) via email, followed by an answer to their question(s) after it has been processed by our technical team. Offerors may view all bidder inquiries through ProjNet.

c. Inquiries must be submitted seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal due date. Offerors will not be able to submit inquiries after this date as the ProjNet system must be shut down.

2. To submit and review bid inquiries, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: VBWFG7-VNWQVN

3. Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

a. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

b. Identify the Agency as USACE.

c. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

d. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

e. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

f. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

g. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

4. Submit questions or review questions and answers. A bidder who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that their question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer is then available for all other bidders to review.

5. For specific step-by-step for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES, see the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

6. For questions about the ProjNet-®, please contact the Call Center help desk toll free at 1-800-428-HELP, which operates from 8AM to 5PM (Central US time zone). ProjNet-® questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@rcesupport.com.

7. 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 may be conducted during Phase Two.

E. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a post-award debriefing after award by submitting a written request to the contracting officer within three (3) days after receipt of the notice excluding the offeror from the competition and award.

Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

F. BASIS OF PHASE ONE EVALUATION

1. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. In determining the most highly qualified offerors, the Government will evaluate qualification proposals to determine offerors who are responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1; who are responsive to the solicitation requirements; and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technical standards for non-price factors.

The Government intends to advance up to five (5) offerors to Phase Two from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract.

2. The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate qualification proposals by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in each offeror’s proposal and assigning a combined technical/risk rating.

Definitions

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an 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.

Significant Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g.

more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. 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 for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that a proposal is unacceptable. A final determination that a proposal is unacceptable means that the offeror will not be selected as a most highly qualified offeror and the Government will not request that the offeror submit a Phase Two proposal.

4. The Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions if the Government determines that to do so would be in its best interests. Therefore, an offeror’s proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the contracting officer to be necessary or requested by the source selection authority (SSA).

G. PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

All of the submission items to be evaluated shall pertain to the offeror, whether a single contractor entity, partnership, or a joint venture, as a minimum twenty percent (20%) of work associated with this project is required to be performed by the contract awardee.

Subcontractors: The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. An offeror that intends to utilize a major subcontractor shall submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by each major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who performs twenty percent (20%) or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts or those performing 20% or more of the total dollar value of the project. Offerors who propose to use a designer of record (DOR) are also required to submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the DOR. An offeror’s technical proposal will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process unless a required letter of commitment is provided which establishes the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor(s) will actually be available for this project.

If an offeror’s proposal includes the use of any major subcontractors or DORs, the offeror shall not change subcontractors or DORs without the contracting officer’s approval. If an offeror proposes to change major subcontractors or DORs after award, the offeror shall not change major subcontractors or DORs without the contracting officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal or better in all respects to the originally proposed major subcontractor or DOR and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

Joint Ventures: A joint venture is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies to undertake the performance activities of a contract together.

An offeror proposing as a joint venture 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 representative who can bind the entity of each JV partner, with the chief executive of each entity identified. A prospective offeror that submits a proposal as a JV may not change their joint venture firms, if selected for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Relative importance of Phase One evaluation factors: For Phase One evaluation purposes, the Technical Approach factor is significantly more important than Past Performance factor.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 1, Technical Approach, consist of two components: management approach and prior experience. The two components are equal in importance to each other. Factor 1 will be evaluated in its entirety resulting in an assignment of a single technical approach rating.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Component 1: Management Approach

An 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. An offeror’s narrative should identify all major scope components of the project, including critical components. The narrative should include a discussion of an offeror’s planned technical approach that addresses shipping and logistics (air, land, and sea), phasing, local labor and subcontractor markets, local laws, anticipated challenges to the project, and the unique requirements associated with designing and constructing a hangar facility.

The narrative shall also address the following:

a. UAE Business License: An offeror shall include, with its narrative, proof of current UAE business licensure in the offeror’s name, or alternatively, the offeror’s plan to obtain a UAE business license.

b. Base Access: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with Al Dhafra Air Base security requirements and its plan to obtain a security clearance from the Command Ministry of Works (CMW). The narrative should also describe the offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for its personnel, subcontractors, and its construction materials and equipment.

c. Organization: An offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage the project. The offeror should discuss its proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to its team. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction and those who will perform design. The offeror should identify how it plans to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and explain the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. The offeror should include an organizational chart along with an accompanying narrative, which shows the relationship and how work flows through the organization between the offeror’s home office, field office, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the offeror should clearly state the roles of any joint venture partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

Offerors shall include a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by each of its major subcontractor(s) and proposed DOR in its proposal submission.

The management approach portion of an offeror’s proposal will be limited to fifteen pages in length, not including organizational chart(s) or letters of commitment. Any pages beyond fifteen will not be evaluated and will be ignored.

Component 2: Prior Experience

An offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed five pages, that outlines how its experience on prior projects which will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Although an offeror may highlight any experience it has gained, an offeror’s narrative should pertain to the offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with design and construction challenges within the last ten (10) years, and how these experiences will positively impact its performance handling a design-build project in the UAE. As part of its narrative, an offeror should address process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address design and construction challenges.

For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the Offeror’s prior experience in dealing with design and construction challenges, 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.

At a minimum, an offeror should address its experience in the following:

a. Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

b. Procurement of long lead items.

c. Obtaining access to work locations, such as base access.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may discuss experience on projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner. In its evaluation of this component, the Government is focused on the offeror’s prior experience.

If an offeror discusses experience of its proposed DOR and/or major subcontractor(s), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the DOR and/or subcontractor(s) must be included in the offeror’s proposal. If this requisite letter of commitment is not submitted, the prior experience of the DOR and major subcontractor(s) will not be considered.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

An offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated in its entirety to determine the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and its capability to execute the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate the extent of the offeror’s consideration of the inherent challenges that are specific to this project scope and location.

In evaluating an offeror’s technical approach, the Government will evaluate each component as follows:

Component 1: Management Approach: The Government will evaluate proposals to determine the completeness and feasibility of an offeror’s management approach and its understanding of the overall scope of work and anticipated challenges. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s management approach based on the following aspects:

a. UAE Business License: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to obtain a business license to work in the UAE.

b. Base Access: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements at Al Dhafra Air Base. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility of the plan.

c. Organization: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to manage the project. The Government will assess an offeror’s proposed project organization for well-defined roles, responsibilities, and authority delegated to its team. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and how well the offeror defines the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s organizational chart and narrative to determine the effectiveness of the relationships and work flow between the offeror’s home office, field office, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any joint venture partners if applicable.

Component 2: Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with design and construction challenges to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Greater Weight Considerations:

a. Greater weight will be given to offerors who possess a current UAE business license.

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained a security clearance from the Command Ministry of Works (CMW) to work on a UAE military base for previous or current projects.

c. Greater weight will be given to offerors who effectively demonstrate they will self-perform more than fifty percent (50%) of the work.

d. Greater weight will be given to offerors who demonstrate prior experience in the design and construction of pre-engineered hangars.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the technical approach of an offeror’s proposal. The ratings include consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. The Factor 1 evaluation will utilize the combined technical /risk ratings and the risk descriptions as follows:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation includes an assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and results in an assignment of a single past performance confidence assessment rating based on an offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date.

A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as the design and/or construction of fabric covered hangars, airfield pavements, and associated maintenance administration or operational storage areas.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $20 million or more.

An offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet

(Attachment B), Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C) and Relevancy Matrix (Attachment D). The offeror should include a project description on the Design/Construction Experience Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and magnitude.

The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

An 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. References should be the contracting agency or entity that administers the contract such as the construction agent, owner, or Government representative. The offeror’s references should be 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.

When submitting past performance information for consideration, the offeror is limited to (a) at least one but no more than three projects that have been performed by the offeror, and (b) at least one but no more than three design projects that have been performed by the offeror’s proposed design team/designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the offeror. The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the 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 the JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the JV partner on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner will be performing on the solicitation project. The Government will not consider for evaluation under this factor the past performance of any subcontractors other than the offeror’s proposed design team /designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) (Attachment E) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ-0 (including blocks 5 and 6), which will provide the contract and client information necessary to conduct an assessment.

An offeror should follow up with clients to ensure that PPQ submissions are in accordance with the solicitation requirements and the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Marissa M. Louden at Marissa.M.Louden@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQs for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQs by reference into their proposals.

In addition to the PPQs, the offeror is permitted to submit DD Form 2626 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for projects submitted. Past performance information such as awards, certificates, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition shall not be submitted as this information will not be evaluated. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted in the appropriate space provided on the Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

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

APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

The Government reserves the right to contact and interview references and clients submitted by an offeror, or by any other means available in order to verify past performance information. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the offeror by reviewing relevant Government databases, other DoD or Government appraisal systems, or other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in an offeror’s proposal; inquiries of owner representative(s); Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); Government field representatives; and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation (recency, relevancy, and quality) which results in a single performance confidence assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Recency: The first is to evaluate the recency of an offeror’s past performance. A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP issued, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the date the RFP is issued.

b. Relevance: The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror is to the solicitation’s effort. A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as the design and/or construction of fabric covered hangars, airfield pavements, and associated maintenance administration or operational storage areas.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $20 million or more.

Within the relevancy aspect, an offeror’s past performance is evaluated to determine how relevant the offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. 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 following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of an offeror’s past performance.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

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.

c. Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of an offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this solicitation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of an offeror’s performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well an offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the work required in the solicitation. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance.

The Government places a higher value on past performance for which documented successful outcomes are both available and supported by outside source confirmation (for example, telephone interviews with references and clients, CPARS or other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror).

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

In the case of an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offerors past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. However, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria. The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to an offeror from Governmental and non-Government sources and databases.

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Greater Weight Considerations:

a. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on a recently completed, relevant project that include both design and construction (design-build) of fabric covered hangars, airfield pavements, and associated maintenance administration or operational storage areas.

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on recently completed, relevant projects in the UAE, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Yemen.

c. If an offeror proposes as a joint venture, more weight will be given to the recently completed, relevant past performance of a joint venture that has previous experience working together than to a newly formed joint venture with no such previous experience.

PHASE TWO: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following is a brief overview, for information only, of the proposed Phase Two process. It will only be applicable to those offerors who will be selected to submit proposals in Phase Two. Do not submit Phase Two documentation during Phase One. All offerors selected to propose for Phase Two will be evaluated on the evaluation factors outlined in the Phase Two solicitation. This overview is for informational purposes and is subject to change.

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT

Offerors are required to submit proposals with at least the minimum content specified herein. A proposal without the minimum content may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences.