W912ER-17-R-0024_Amend_05.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

W912ER-17-R-0024 Amendment 05

This Amendment revises Section 00 21 00 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors to re-open Projnet. Projnet w ill be re-opened August 2, 2017 and close August 11, 2017 for any questions regarding the RFP. The same bidder key w ill apply.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Aug-2017

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-0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Jul-2017

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

02-Aug-2017

CODE

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

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-17-R-0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been modified:

INDEX

PROVISIONS BY REFERENCE

52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

52.204-16 COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT ENTITY CODE

REPORTING

52.214-34 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

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

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMPETITIVE

ACQUISITION

52.215-20 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA

AND DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING

DATA

52.232-13 NOTICE OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS

52.236-28 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS – CONSTRUCTION

252.225-7042 AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM

PROVISIONS BY FULL TEXT

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995) – ALTERNATE I

(FEB 1995)

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE

52.252-5 AUTHORIZED DEVIATIONS IN PROVISIONS

252.204-7004, Alt A ALTERNATE A, SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE

INFORMATION CONTROLS

252.215-7008 ONLY ONE OFFER

Instructions to Prospective Offerors

General. Late Submissions will not be considered. Electronic or faxed proposal submissions will not be considered. Proposals shall be clearly marked on the outside of the packages with the solicitation number. The closing date annotated on the pre-solicitation notice posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) at www.fbo.gov/ is for FedBizOpps archiving purpose only.

The proposals due date is: August 18, 2017, 4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

All complete proposals will be evaluated if received in time, as indicated above. The following FAR clause is applicable to this acquisition and may be viewed at:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition

Summary of Submission Requirements:

Cover Letter (see content instructions below) Joint Venture (JV) documentation/agreement (if applicable) Subcontractor/Key Personnel Letters of Commitment (if applicable) Factor 1 Management/Technical Approach documentation Factor 2 Construction Experience documentation Factor 3 Past Performance documentation Factor 4 Financial Surety Factor 5 Price Proposal

Proposal Format. Responses to the solicitation shall be submitted in the following format:

Volume I – Non-Pricing (Technical) Proposal

Three ring binders or bound with tabs or separators dividing each of the sections noted below. Page limits, if stipulated under each evaluation factor, shall be adhered to.

Proposals shall be submitted on 8.5” X 11” paper, utilizing both sides of the paper unless otherwise stated under each factor. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on both sides. Use 12 Point Font, Arial for all documents. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits specified herein.

The proposal shall be in the following order with tabs dividing each section:

Cover Letter Joint Venture documentation/agreement (if applicable) Letters of Commitment from Subcontractors (LOC) (if applicable) Factor 1 Management/Technical Approach documents Factor 2 Construction Experience documents Factor 3 Past Performance documents

A total of one (1) original and two (2) hard copies of the complete proposal shall be submitted on or before the closing due date and time specified above. Offerors shall also provide one electronic copy on a CD.

Volume II – Price Proposal

The offeror shall submit a price on all items in the schedule including all option items.

Failure to do so will disqualify the proposal unless the Source Selection Authority decides to engage in discussions with the offeror(s). The unit price for each item shall be shown. A total shall be entered in the amount column of the schedule for each item.

The Price Proposal shall be submitted as one (1) original and two (2) hard copies.

Offerors shall also provide one electronic copy on a CD. The price proposal shall be separately bound from the technical proposal information and should include the following:

SF 1442 Solicitation, Offer and Award

Section 00 11 00 – Standard Form (SF) 1442 and CLIN Schedule Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Cost breakdown sheets (included as Attachments D & E).

Factor 4: Financial Surety documentation

Cover Letter. Include the following information in your cover letter:

Solicitation number Name, address, telephone number, and email address of the offeror DUNS number, CAGE Code, and TIN of the offeror Acknowledgement of any amendments issued (amendment number and date acknowledged by offeror)

Proposal Submission. Electronic proposals (facsimile, email, etc.) are not authorized.

All proposals must be sent via U.S. Mail or Commercial Carrier (FedEx, UPS, etc.) or delivered by hand to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Middle East District Attn: Ms. Maria Rodeffer

W912ER-17-R-0024

201 Prince Frederick Drive Winchester, VA 22602

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/.

The solicitation number is: W912ER-17-R-0024 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: DRJYPF-327385

1. To access the ProjNet website for the first time:

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

b. Identify the Agency. This should be marked 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.

2. To access ProjNet for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

a. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password.

You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

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

c. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

e. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

f. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your

Secret Question.

g. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

Note, offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

3. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries after 11 August 2017 in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form appropriate responses to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

4. Offerors are requested to review the solicitation in its entirety and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. An offeror that submits a question will receive an acknowledgement via email, followed by an answer after it has been processed by the Government’s technical and contracting team.

5. The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) and by appointment for inquiries from OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. ProjNet questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@projnet.info.

Amendments to the solicitation. Any and all amendments to this solicitation will be issued electronically and be available via www.fbo.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this solicitation and acknowledge any and all amendments in the text of the cover letter (amendment number and date acknowledged by offeror) sent with their proposal package in response to this solicitation.

Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit. Please refer to FAR Provision 52.236-27 Alt 1 for detailed information regarding the site visit. The site visit is scheduled for 22 July 2017.

Offerors must submit requested forms by 8 July 2017 by email provided in the above clause. Any late submissions could result in non-access to the site visit. Please refer to Section 00 73 00 Special Contract Requirements, Paragraph 5 for select nationalities subject to additional security screening; individuals from those listed countries may be prohibited access to the work site. Forms required for the site visit or listed in the Attachments and Section 01 14 00 in the Specifications.

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

Offerors proposing as joint ventures shall provide evidence that the Joint Venture as a legal entity has been duly formed. Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. The Government will not evaluate the capabilities of any entities that are not included in a JV offeror’s joint venture agreement.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity, provided that (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. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole. An offeror that submits a proposal may not change the identity of any legal entity or any component of a Joint Venture firm from the identity submitted in its offer (including in obtaining LOCs and with regard to proposed subcontractors).

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

System for Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including Joint Venture entities) shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting offers. Offerors will be eliminated if they are not registered in SAM. For more information, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

Ensure that NAICS code 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction, is listed on your SAM registration.

Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS): Failure to be approved in JCCS – and thereby be eligible for installation access at the Prime and subcontractor levels – or failure to inform the contracting officer of the names of all prospective subcontractors (or provide a negative reply), may render the offerors/contractor ineligible for award or continued performance. Additionally, any firm that is declared ineligible for installation access will be deemed non-responsible until such time as that firm is again deemed eligible by the appropriate access approval authority. Registration site:

https://www.jccs.gov

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

Discussions. The Government intends to the select most highly qualified offeror and may choose not to conduct discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Point of Contact (POC):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Middle East District Ms. Maria Rodeffer 201 Prince Frederick Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Maria.c.rodeffer@usace.army.mil

Section 00 22 10 - Design-Bid-Build Selection Procedures

BASIS FOR AWARD

Subject to the provisions herein, award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible according to the FAR, whose offer conforms to the RFP, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the RFP, represents the best value to the Government using the Best Value Tradeoff Process (BVTO) in accordance with FAR Part 15.

Award of a contract shall be made to the responsible offeror whose overall proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government. Pricing shall be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Non-pricing features of each proposal shall be evaluated against the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements, assessing their strengths and significant strengths, weaknesses and significant weakness as well as associated risks, and deficiencies of each proposal in light of the non-pricing evaluation criteria that is also described herein. Non-pricing features of an offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated in such a manner as to assess the value of those features as compared to the proposed prices or costs to the Government. Implicit in this process is the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest priced offer, if the added benefits of a higher priced offer outweigh the additional cost or price involved.

All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price, except for Financial Surety which gets a Go/No-Go rating.

In evaluating proposals and in making the contract award, the Government is as concerned with obtaining the best non-pricing features as it is in doing so at a competitive reasonable price. The Government will not make a contract award to an offeror whose superior non-pricing features causes the total cost of the project to become unreasonably high. Nor is the Government willing to make a contract award to an offeror submitting the lowest price if the non-pricing features of its proposal indicate a reasonable likelihood that successful project completion will not occur. An unsuccessful project would be a project that, among other things, fails to meet acceptable quality standards of work in a timely and safe manner at reasonable cost.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions, although the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government's best interests. Therefore, an offeror that desires consideration for the contract award is advised to comply with all mandatory requirements of this solicitation for submission of price and non-price factors.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED AND EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 1: Management/Technical Approach – This factor evaluates the offeror’s management and technical capability to perform the requirements of the contract based on their understanding of the scope of work and their approach to executing projects and preliminary Gantt Chart Schedule and schedule narrative.

Factor 2: Construction Experience – This factor evaluates the offeror’s construction experience in design-bid-build construction projects ($10- $15 million) in the same geographic region. For the purposes of this evaluation the “same geographic region” shall include Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

Factor 3: Past Performance – This factor evaluates each offeror’s record of past and current performance to (1) determine the probability that the offeror will successfully perform required efforts of the solicitation, (2) determine relevancy of the past performance information, and (3) conduct a confidence assessment of the offeror’s past and current performance on contracts/projects.

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.

Factor 5: Price – The Government will evaluate the completeness, reasonableness and balance of each offeror’s price proposal. To the extent that line item prices are requested, the price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Reasonableness will be determined by comparing each offeror’s proposed prices against each other and the Independent Government Estimate, or by other techniques outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b).

FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT / TECHNICAL APPROACH

Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 1:

Factor 1: Management/Technical Approach - The Offeror shall submit a proposed preliminary Gantt Chart schedule and schedule narrative. For the schedule narrative, an offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed ten (10) pages (single sided) in length. The ten page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment, Gantt Chart, Business License and Organizational Charts. Any pages beyond the ten page limitation will not be evaluated.

An offeror shall provide a preliminary schedule and a narrative to accompany and complement the Gantt chart schedule that describes the project’s critical path and demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work for the project and the offeror’s approach to completing the work. The narrative should include a discussion of an offeror’s planned technical approach to the repairs that addresses procurement and shipping of long lead items, phasing, local labor and equipment availability, and the challenges associated with conducting repairs to an active military airfield.

The narrative shall specifically address the following elements:

Element 1 - Jordan Business License: An offeror shall include, with its narrative, proof of current Jordan business licensure in the offeror’s name, or alternatively, the offeror’s supported plan to obtain a Jordan business license. Offeror shall provide documentary evidence and any necessary narrative to prove that they are currently registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform construction work in Jordan.

Element 2 - Base Access and Security Requirements: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with security requirements to base access at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. The narrative shall also describe the offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access and security requirements for its personnel, subcontractors, and its construction materials and equipment. Offeror must address CENTCOM Clause 5152.225-5916 Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access (reference Special Contract Requirements) and how they will comply if awarded a contract, during the entire contract period of performance to include any warranty period, for installation access to a U.S. and/or host country installation, Offerors shall address in their plan how they are to meet the force protection escort requirements, i.e. be US Citizens, hold current US SECRET clearance. Reference Section 01 14 00 Work Restrictions, paragraph 1.5.1 of the specifications

Element 3 - Organization: An offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage the project. The offeror shall discuss its proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to its team. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction. The offeror shall include an organizational chart depicting the relationship between the offeror’s home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the offeror shall clearly state the roles of any JV partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

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

Element 4 – Quality Control: Each offeror shall describe its capabilities to assure quality control by describing its quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the construction. Each offeror shall provide specific information on how it will manage quality control and changes to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government review, as well as how it will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR 1

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:

Technical 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, the phased repairs, and anticipated challenges. Additionally, the Government will evaluate an offeror’s approach regarding the following aspects:

Element 1 - Jordan Business License: The offeror will show that they have the necessary construction licenses and documentation to prove that they have worked and can currently work in Jordan. Offerors must submit copies of their current licenses to perform construction projects in Jordan as part of their proposals. Greater weight will be given to offerors that are able to prove to the satisfaction of the Government the sufficiency of their current, valid licenses and registrations to allow them to perform the work under this contract. Greater weight will be given to offerors who possess a current Jordan business license (license information must be translated into English).

Element 2 - Base Access and Security Requirements: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements at Muwaffaq Salti 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. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s understanding of current base access/pass procedures, requirements and potential constraints. The completeness, reasonableness, feasibility, and timeline of the offeror’s plan to gain a sufficient number of base passes to meet the offeror’s staffing plan will be considered.

Greater weight will be given to offerors that demonstrate they currently perform work in Jordan, with the greatest weight given to offerors that have demonstrated the ability to access military installations in Jordan and able to comply with the force protection escort requirements and compliance with the clause 5152-225-5016 Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access (reference Special Contract Requirements). Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained base access and gate passes to work on a Jordan military base for previous or current projects.

Element 3 - 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. Greater weight will be given to offerors who can effectively demonstrate organizational structure, process, and procedures that minimize the risk to the Government

The Government will give greater weight to proposals that demonstrates an understanding of: (1) how the requirements will be accomplished under the proposed organizational structure; (2) how supervision will be accomplished during all phases of work; and (3) how various types of problems will be effectively and efficiently resolved within the organization.

Greater weight will be given to offerors who effectively demonstrate they will self-perform more than twenty percent (20%) of the work.

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: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Each offeror’s experience will be examined for breadth and depth of work performed in design-bid-build construction and repair projects that are the same or similar to the solicitation. The successful offeror will possess demonstrated experience performing as the Prime Contractor for design-bid-build or site-adapt construction or repair projects relevant to the solicitation. For the purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project would include significant repair or new construction of airfield pavements, inclusive of asphalt, concrete, and airfield lighting repair or construction in the same geographic region as the solicitation’s requirements, with a contract value in excess of $10M. For the purposes of this evaluation the “same geographic region” shall include Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. For purposes of this Construction Experience Factor, and whose experience will be considered, “offeror” means the prime offeror, either member of a joint venture that is the prime offeror, or a major subcontractor (expected to do 30% or more of the work) for which a letter of commitment has been provided with the prime offeror’s proposal.

Offerors shall provide information about projects, delineating the project name, major features, overall contract value (US dollars), the offeror’s role in the project (Prime/Sub), overall contract value the entity was responsible for (dollars or percent), location of project site (country, nearest city), contract duration (calendar days) and year in which it was completed, or its current completion date. If any offeror (meaning the entity whose experience has been submitted) has multiple divisions or units, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or construction completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation.

The offeror shall submit a completed Construction Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A) capturing all projects being submitted for evaluation, as well as Construction Experience Information Sheets (Attachment B) for no more than five

(5) projects that have been completed by the offeror within the past five years or are currently being performed and well underway (at least 75% construction complete). If more than five projects are submitted for this factor, only the first five will be evaluated.

EVALUATION APPROACH FOR FACTOR 2

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s experience and will rate each offeror on the basis of relative depth of their experience in managing and executing projects that are similar in magnitude (>$10M) and complexity in the past five years and as stated in the solicitation.

The Government places a greater weight on a proposal that demonstrates successful experience in the following areas in order of importance:

(1) Construction projects similar to the solicitation requirements in the following locations in order of precedence:

a. Runway Repair Projects on a Jordanian military base

b. Repair or Construction of an Airfield Lighting System in Jordan

c. Construction projects on a Jordan military base

d. Construction projects in Jordan

(2) Construction or repair projects that required performance on an active Runway.

a. Offerors with quality control experience on a USACE project.

b. Offerors with USACE experience on a project in Hashemite, Kingdom of Jordan.

c. Offerors that demonstrate previous experience with subcontractors on relevant projects included in experience/past performance factors.

FACTOR 2: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The Experience Factor 2 rating shown below focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Experience Factor 2 requirements.

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

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 un- awardable.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Factor 3 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 75% 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 construction of or repairs to runways and airfield lighting systems.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $10 million.

An offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A) and Construction Experience Form (Attachment B). 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 Construction Experience Form (Attachment B).

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 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.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) (Attachment C) 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-0 submissions are in accordance with the solicitation requirements and the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQ-0’s may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Maria Rodeffer (maria.c.rodeffer@usace.army.mil ) prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQ-0’s for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions.

However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQ-0’s by reference into their proposals.

In addition to the PPQ-0’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 B).

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 75% 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 repairs to runways and airfield lighting systems.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $10 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.

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 3, 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.

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

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

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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. The surety or bank shall attest to the offeror’s ability to obtain bonding or a satisfactory Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) for 30% of the total proposed amount in the offeror’s CLIN Schedule of the RFP for each of the performance and payment sureties. 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. Offerors must submit proof of their ability to obtain the required surety to receive a “Go” rating. Offerors who receive a “No-Go” rating will be eliminated from consideration for award.

Financial Surety Ratings Rating Definition

Go Offeror provided proof of their ability to obtain performance and payment bonds, irrevocable letters of credit or other surety as described in FAR Part 28.

No-Go Offeror did not provide proof of their ability to obtain performance and payment bonds, irrevocable letters of credit or other surety as described in FAR Part 28.

FACTOR 5: PRICE

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: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of each offeror’s price proposal.