W912ER-18-R-0004-01_Modificaion.pdf

W912ER18R0004

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

Please see block 14 continuation page under summary of changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Mar-2018

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 W912ER18R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Feb-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 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 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

16-Mar-2018

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This amendment is issued to revise the following:

1. Proposal Schedule and Cost Breakdown – Replaced in their entirety

2. Specifications: Revised sections are replaced in their entirety. Revisions to the specification pages are shown on the pages in the following manner: New text is underlined and deleted text is shown using strikeout. The amendment number appears in the bottom margin on all pages of the new or revised sections.

The following have been revised:

Project Table of Contents – Replaced in its entirety

Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.2 – page 3

Section 01 14 00 Paragraph 1.4.7 – page 4 Paragraph 1.5 – page 8 Attachment C – Added in its entirety

Section 01 33 00 Submittal Register - Pages 55 and 56 of 62

Section 01 80 00.12 10 Paragraph 2.11.1 – page 8 Paragraph 2.11.2.1 – page 9 Paragraphs 2.11.2.1.1 thru 2.11.2.1.3 – pages 9 and 10 Paragraph 4 – page 18 Attachment A – Added in its entirety Attachment B – Added in its entirety Attachment F – Added in its entirety

Section 33 20 00 – Deleted in its entirety

3. Drawings.Revisions to the following drawings are identified by a triangle placed on the drawing near each revision and a "cloud" drawn around both the triangle and change.

G-011 Index of Drawings G-012 Index of Drawings Site Design 1 – C- 424, C-425, C-521 and XE-118 Guard House (Facility E) – E-101 ITN (Facility F) – E-101, E-102 and E-601 Fire Pump House (Facility I) – E-101 and E-102 Standards – SE-001, SE-501, SE-502, SE-503 and SE-505

4. Volume 1 Solicitation Instructions/ Contract Clauses: Revisions are shown on the pages in the following manner: New text is underlined and deleted text is shown using strikeout.

The following have been revised:

Project Title- Changed from “Muwaffaq Salti Air Base Development Jordan” to “UD 2.4- Package 1 LSA, Jordan”

Section 01 10 00

Add Option CLIN’s 0005 and 0006- page 9

Section 00 21 00

Deleted Financial Sure Documentation- page 12

Changed single sided to double sided- page 17

Changed paragraph 1.5.1 to paragraph 1.4- page 18

Changed site visit time from 1:30 PM to 9:00 AM- page 36

Changed MSAB” to “a military base near Amman Jordan”- page 36

Changed “Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (MSAB)”to“a military base near Amman, Jordan”-page 50

Section 00 72 00

Changed “Design Build CONTRACT ORDER OF PRECEDENCE” to “PARTNERING”- page

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization below has been added:

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT (CETAM-CT)

201 PRINCE FREDERICK DRIVE

WINCHESTER VA 22602

The required performance has changed from Magnitude of Construction : Between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.Please pay special attention to the requirements listed in FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit. The site visit is scheduled for 17 March, 2018. Award of this contract is subject to the availability of funds as described in FAR 52.232-18.Award of this contract is subject to the approval of a Land Use Agreement from local authorities. to UD 2.4- Package 1 LSA, JordanMagnitude of Construction : Between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.Please pay special attention to the requirements listed in FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit. The site visit is scheduled for 17 March, 2018.

Award of this contract is subject to the availability of funds as described in FAR 52.232-18.Award of this contract is subject to the approval of a Land Use Agreement from local authorities..

CLIN 0005 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0005 1 Job OPTION Option #2 Well #1

FFP

Option #2 Drill & Construct Well #1 in accordance with the contract documents.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

CLIN 0006 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0006 1 Job OPTION Option #3 Well #2

FFP

Option #3 Drill & Construct Well #2 in accordance with the contract documents.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INDEX

PROVISIONS BY FULL TEXT

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

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT

52.217-4 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS EXERCISED AT TIME OF AWARD

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

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

52.236-28 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS – CONSTRUCTION

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

252.225-7042 AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM

252.236.7013 REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICAN

STEEL PRODUCERS, FABRICATORS, AND MANUFACTURERS

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 presolicitation notice posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) at www.fbo.gov is for FedBizOpps archiving purpose only.

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.

The proposal due date is: 4:00 PM EST, 9 April 2018

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) Corporate Certificate / Authority to Bind Partnership (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 Factor 4 Financial Surety

A total of one (1) original and three (3) 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 three (3) 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 10 00 Price Schedule

Section 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications Cost breakdown sheets (included as an attachment).

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: Mr. Kenneth G. Baker

W912ER-18-R-0004

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-18-R-0004 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: IFS6X8-ZT9SI8

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 not 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 seven days prior to the proposal due date 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.

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): Contractors (including Joint Venture entities) shall be registered in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) prior to submitting offers. 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 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 Mr. Kenneth G. Baker 201 Prince Frederick Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Kenneth.G.Baker@usace.army.mil

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 significantly more important than price.

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 valued at $20M 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. Such surety shall attest to the offeror's ability to provide coverage of 10% for this project. 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.

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 double sided) in length. The ten page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment from Key Management Staff the Prime Contractor proposes in positions, and Organizational Charts. Any pages beyond the ten page limitation will not be evaluated.

The Offeror shall provide a preliminary level schedule from award to contract completion.

Describe in narrative detail the specific actions, key milestones, country specific requirements, processes, procedures and contractual requirements that the Offeror will perform after award, in accordance with the proposed schedule, and prior to start of construction start in order to meet the stated period of performance. The schedule should be in the form of a time scaled network diagram Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule. The length of the schedule should be in compliance with the stated Period of Performance. The project schedule should contain a sufficient amount of activities and key milestones which demonstrate an understanding of the project scope. Provide information on your team’s approach to procure, ship and deliver long-lead items. Provide information regarding manufacturer ordering, transportation times and special instructions, customs, erection times, etc.

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. Offerors must address CENTCOM Clause 5152.225.5916 Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access 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 and hold current US SECRET clearance. Reference Section 01 14 00 Work Restrictions, paragraph 1.5.1 1.4 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. 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.

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 management and 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 management and 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 or provide proof of their ability to obtain a construction license to perform 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.

Schedule: The Government will review the contract duration presented in the preliminary schedule to determine if it satisfies the requirements of the Government’s RFP. The Government will also review the schedule for logic shown concerning integration and/or sequencing construction work on the different elements of the project. Greater weight will be given to schedules which identify and include the major construction milestones and project elements in both pre-NTP and in the construction phase. The Government will review the schedule and narrative for how well it identifies and addresses constraints on the performance of the work, such as labor, material availability, permits, long lead items, etc. Greater weight will be given to detailed narratives which clearly identify critical schedule related issues and potential problems and discuss meaningful mitigation strategies to avoid sources of potential delays. Greater weight will also be given to schedules and narratives which demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of all of the elements of the project scope of work.

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 CENTCOM Clause 5152-225-5916 Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access which is listed in full text in section 00 73 00.

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.

Greater weight will be given 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 as required by clause 52.236-1 entitled in “Performance of Work by the Contractor” found herein this solicitation.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the management/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

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 roads, electrical and water distribution utility systems including wells, pumps and transformers, telecommunications duct banks, sidewalks, waste water collection and entry control points in the same geographic region as the solicitation’s requirements, with a contract value of $20M or more. 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.

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 has multiple divisions or units, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Additional experience examples may be submitted for consideration on any other member of a Contractor Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project (i.e. greater than 30% of the work).

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 of $20M and complexity in the past five years and as stated in the solicitation.

Greater weight will be placed by the Government on a proposal that demonstrates successful experience on construction projects similar to the solicitation requirements in the following locations in order of precedence:

(1) Construction/Major Repair Projects on an active Jordanian military base.

(2) Construction or significant repair of roads and utility systems in Jordan.

(3) Offerors with USACE experience on a project in the Kingdom of Jordan.

(4) Offerors that demonstrate previous experience with subcontractors on “relevant projects” included in experience/past performance factors in the same geographic region.

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

Adjectival

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 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 a project that includes new construction or significant repair of roads and utility systems to include electrical and water distribution, wells and pumps, transformers, telecommunications duct banks, waste water collection, sidewalks and entry control points in the same geographic region as the solicitation’s requirements.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $20 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 Joint Venture (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-

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, Mr. Kenneth Baker @ Kenneth.g.baker@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 (Appendix E, Attachment B).

FALSIFIED 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, relevance, 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 as a project that includes new construction or significant repair of roads and utility systems to include electrical and water distribution, wells and pumps, transformers, telecommunications duct banks, waste water collection, sidewalks and entry control points in the same geographic region as the solicitation’s requirements.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $20 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…