Amendment_0002.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

Project Title: Perimeter Security Fence, Camp Arif jan, Kuw ait

1. The purpose of this Amendment is to revise the language in the Evaluation Factors and extend the proposal due date.

2. The proposal due date is extended from 23 February 2018, 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, to 06 April 2018, 4:00PM Eaestern Standard Time.

See Continuation pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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-17-R-0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Jan-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Feb-2018

CODE

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT (CETAM-CT)

201 PRINCE FREDERICK DRIVE

WINCHESTER VA 22602

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ER-17-R-0021

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

Language in the Evaluation Factors have been revised as indicated below.

1. Under F. EVALUATION FACTORS, language has been revised in its entirety to read as follows:

F. 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.

Joint Ventures: A JV 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 JV shall provide evidence that the JV as a legal entity has been duly formed. JV’s shall include a copy of the legal JV 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 JV firms, if selected for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

FACTOR 4: FINANCIAL SURETY

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Relative importance of the evaluation factors: For evaluation purposes, Technical Approach (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2) are approximately equal in weight and are more important than Preliminary Schedule (Factor 3). When Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3, are combined, they are given significantly more weight than Factor 5 (Price) in the evaluation process for this acquisition.

Factor 4, Financial Surety, shall be rated on a “Pass” or “Fail” basis. Offerors who receive a “Fail” rating will be eliminated from consideration for award.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 1, Technical Approach, consists of two elements: Management Approach and Prior Experience. The two elements 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.

Under Factor 1, an offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed twenty (20) pages (single sided) and may assign a total of twenty pages as they see necessary in describing management approach and experience on prior projects which will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Management Approach

The management approach element of an offeror’s proposal shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, not including organizational chart(s) or letters of commitment. Any pages beyond fifteen (15) will not be evaluated and will be ignored.

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 requirements associated with constructing a perimeter security fence and inclusion of multiple gate locations.

The narrative shall also address the following:

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

b. Base Access: An offeror should explain how it will comply with Camp Arifjan’s security requirements. The narrative shall 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, providing a narrative which should address the following:

a. Proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to its team.

b. Identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction.

c. If applicable, the offeror shall clearly state the roles of any JV partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

d. Organization Chart: The offeror shall 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, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE.

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

Prior Experience

Although an offeror may highlight any experience it has gained, to include experience with fence construction, an offeror’s narrative, not to exceed five (5) pages, shall pertain to the offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with construction challenges within the last five (5) years, and how these experiences will positively impact its performance handling a design-bid-build project in Kuwait. As part of its narrative, an offeror should address process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address construction challenges.

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

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

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.

d. Process improvements or innovative techniques utilized to address construction challenges.

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 segment as follows:

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. Kuwait 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 Kuwait.

b. Base Access: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements at Camp Arifjan. 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 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, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any JV partners if applicable.

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

Additional Greater Weight Considerations:

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

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained a security clearance and gate passes to work on a Kuwait 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 those projects dealing with fence construction to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

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.

2. Factor 2, Past Performance remains unchanged, however has been included in this Amendment for ease of reference.

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 construction of security fences and installation of gates. “Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $5 million.

An offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment B), Construction Experience Form (Attachment C) and Relevancy Matrix (Attachment D). The offeror should include a project description on the 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 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 construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and 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 at least two but no more than five projects that have been performed by the offeror. 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.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment E) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ (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 PPQ’s may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Diane deLathouder at Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQ’s for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQ’s by reference into their proposals.

In addition to the PPQ’s, 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 Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

FALISIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 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 is defined as the construction of security fences and installation of gates. “Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $5 million.

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.

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.

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.

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 includes construction of a base perimeter security fence and inclusion of multiple gate locations.

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

c. If an offeror proposes as a JV, more weight will be given to the recently completed, relevant past performance of a

JV that has previous experience working together than to a newly formed JV with no such previous experience.

3. Under Factor 3, Preliminary Schedule, language has been revised in its entirety to read as follows:

FACTOR 3: PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

An offeror shall provide a preliminary schedule diagram for work associated with all base and options items.

The offeror’s schedule should include the major construction activity milestones identified below with a total project duration of 446 calendar days from award. The offeror shall include with its proposed preliminary schedule an accompanying schedule narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

a. Schedule Diagram:

An offeror’s schedule should be formatted as a time scaled network diagram Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule, in accordance with specification 01 32 17.05 20 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES, except that the schedule should not be cost or resource loaded. The duration of the schedule should be in compliance with the stated period of performance. An offeror’s proposed schedule should include the following major construction activity milestones:

a. Contract award date of 30 March 18

b. Obtain Kuwait business license (if not currently licensed)

c. Obtain access to Camp Arifjan Base

d. Preconstruction submittals (i.e., accident prevention plan, quality control plan, area use plan, etc.)

e. Procurement of long lead items

f. Mobilization

g. Demobilization

h. Project completion

b. Schedule Narrative:

An offeror shall include with its proposed preliminary schedule an accompanying schedule narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements, and that clearly supports the schedule diagram. The offeror’s narrative should include, but not be limited to, an explanation of:

a. The schedule of activities and logic sequence;

b. The critical path;

c. Key construction milestones and features of work;

d. Concurrent activities;

e. Key deliverables;

f. An offeror’s plan to procure construction material to include key long lead items;

g. Constraints on the schedule presented, such as, weather, material availability, plans to utilize multiple crews, or more than one shift, or work an extended workweek to meet the required construction completion date, etc.; and

h. The integration of local/foreign labor and subcontractor firms.

The contract awardee shall submit a Baseline Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) in accordance with the contract specifications after award. The successful offeror’s preliminary project schedule may be incorporated into the resultant contract at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

The Government will evaluate an offeror’s preliminary schedule to determine the extent of the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s preliminary schedule and narrative for completeness and reasonableness of proposed activities and their durations, logic of activities, and sequencing of events. The evaluation will also consider how well the offeror addresses constraints on the performance of work, such as labor, material availability, permits, etc.

Greater Weight Considerations:

Greater weight may be given to proposals that demonstrate the following:

a. Schedule diagram that includes additional activities and milestones, not listed above, that demonstrate further understanding of the project requirements.

b. An overall completion date less than the stated period of performance.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the Preliminary Schedule submission 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 Preliminary Schedule evaluation will utilize the combined technical /risk ratings 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.

4. Factor 4, Financial Surety language has been revised in its entirety to read as follows:

FACTOR 4: FINANCIAL SURETY

Offerors are required to submit proof of their ability to obtain surety in the form of performance and payment bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, or other surety as described in FAR Part 28. Such surety or bank shall attest to the offeror’s ability to obtain bonding or a satisfactory Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) for not less than 10% of the proposal price for the duration of the contract performance period of 446 calendar days. A performance and payment bond must be supported by acceptable security as defined in FAR 28.201. A letter of commitment from an acceptable surety as defined in FAR Part 28 will provide acceptable proof of the offeror’s ability to obtain the required coverage. Only federally insured financial institutions shall confirm the offeror’s ability to obtain the ILC. The evidence of ability to obtain adequate surety must come from an entity that would be acceptable as the surety during contract performance. Accordingly, a letter from a bank that is not (U.S.) federally insured would not be adequate proof of ability to obtain surety without an accompanying letter from a federally insured financial institution that would confirm an ILC issued by the bank that is not (U.S.) federally insured. Similarly, a letter from a commercial surety bond broker would not be acceptable; a letter from U.S. Treasury‐listed bonding company is required to prove ability to provide surety with commercial surety bonds. Offerors must submit proof of their ability to obtain the required surety to receive a “Pass” rating.

5. Factor 5, Price remains unchanged, however has been included in this Amendment for ease of reference.

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Price proposals shall include the following:

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

b. Completed SF 1442, Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule. All Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) shall be completed with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

c. Completed (Attachment F) Supplemental Price Breakdown and Cost Breakdown Sheet in an Excel format.

Ensure figures and totals match Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule. This supplemental information may be used to aid the Government in determining the fairness and reasonableness of an offeror’s proposed price. The total price reflected on the supplemental price breakdown sheet should correspond to the price submitted on the CLIN schedule. Any discrepancies could be considered a deficiency and result in an incomplete proposal evaluation.

Evaluation Procedures and Descriptions:

An offeror’s price proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Part 15. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s price proposal in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

a. The offeror can successfully perform at the proposed price.

b. The price proposal is complete: To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data that is requested to evaluate the price. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

c. The price proposal is balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. An offeror’s proposal may be unacceptable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. The price proposal is reasonable: Price reasonableness will be determined based upon comparison of an offeror’s price proposal with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals).

Price evaluations will not result in an assigned adjectival rating. Contract line items will be analyzed to determine whether unit prices proposed for the work to be performed reflects an offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as, material, labor, equipment, etc. and indirect costs, such as, job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price. Price proposals that are unrealistically high or low when compared to the Government estimate and market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the proposal being rated lower or considered unacceptable.

6. The proposal due date is extended from 23 February 2018, 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, to 06 April 2018, 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

7. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.