Pkg_3_Dormitory_-_Vol_1_of_2_-_Solicitation_W912ER18R0007.pdf

Request for Proposal

W912ER18R0007

Specifications for

Package 3 Dormitory

UD 2.4 Jordan

Volume 1 of 2 Solicitation Instructions

Contract Clauses

US Army Corps of Engineers Middle East District

TITLE: UD 2.4 - Package #3 - Dormitory, Jordan.

Magnitude of Construction is betw een $10,000,000 AND $25,000,000.

KENNETH BAKER 540-665-2607

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

28-Jun-2018

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

X

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______1 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________512 calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________10 Aug 2018 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee is, X is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______90 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT, CETAM-CT

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

W912ER

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

04:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912ER18R0007 164

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Mobilization and Demobilization

FFP

Mobilization and Demobilization in accordance with the contract documents.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job Site Design & Survey

FFP

Site Design & Survey in accordance with the contract documents.

0003 1 Job Construct Dormitory

FFP

Construct Dormitory in accordance with the contract documents.

0004 1 Job Construct Dormitory Supporting Facilitie

FFP

Construct Dormitory Supporting Facilities in accordance with contract documents.

0005 1 Job OPTION Option #1 - Contractor Provided FFE

FFP

Option #1 - Contractor Provided Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FFE) in accordance with the contract documents

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions to Prospective Offerors

A. 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.

B. 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 $10M 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 performance and payment bonds by providing proof of coverage from corporate or individual sureties, irrevocable letters of credit, or other acceptable forms of security as described in FAR Part 28. The offeror’s proof shall attest to the offeror's ability to provide coverage of 10% of the value of this project for the performance and 10% of the value of this project for the payment bond. A performance and payment bond must be supported by acceptable security as defined in FAR 28.201. A letter of commitment from an acceptable corporate or individual 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

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, including prior to the start of construction, in order to meet the stated period of performance.

The narrative for this factor, inclusive of all elements, shall not exceed ten (10) pages (double sided) in length. The ten page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment from Key Management/Staff, and Organizational Charts. Except for the stated exclusions, any pages beyond the ten page limitation will not be evaluated.

The narrative shall specifically address the following elements:

Element 1 - Schedule: The Offeror shall submit a proposed preliminary Gantt chart schedule and schedule narrative.

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.

Element 2 - 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, or a detailed and supported plan to become properly registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform construction work in Jordan.

Element 3 - Base Access and Security Requirements: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with base access security requirements at MSAB 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 how they will comply if awarded a contract, during the entire contract period of performance to include any warranty period, with installation access to a U.S. and/or host country installation.

Element 4 - 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 or construction efforts or those performing 20% or more of the total dollar value of the project.

Element 5 - 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 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 - 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.

Element 3 - 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.

Element 4 - 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 demonstrate 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 "Performance of Work by the Contractor", found in the solicitation.

Element 5 – Quality Control:

The Government will evaluate an offeror's quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to assure quality control of the construction. The Government will evaluate how the offeror 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.

After evaluation of the 5 elements described above, 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 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 relevant to the solicitation. For the purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project would include significant repair or new construction of construction of one (1) two-story dormitory building. Supporting facilities and infrastructure also include mechanical systems, communication information systems, fire distribution and fire suppression systems, roads, storm drainage and parking as indicated on the contract specifications and drawings in the same geographic region as the solicitation's requirements, with a contract value approximately $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.

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 (Appendix E, Attachment A) capturing all projects being submitted for evaluation, as well as Construction Experience Information Sheets (Appendix E, 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 $10M 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:

a. Construction/Major Repair Projects on an active Jordanian military base.

b. Construction projects for similar vertical construction efforts in Jordan.

c. Offerors with USACE experience on a project in the same geographical area.

d. 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 Rating Adjectival

RATING

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 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 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 approximately $10 million.

An offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Appendix E, Attachment A) and Construction Experience Sheet (Appendix E, 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 Sheet (Appendix E, 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) (Appendix E, 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 at 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 Information Sheet (Attach 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. Othersources 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 vertical construction of at least two stories to include electrical, HVAC, and water distribution in the same geographic region as the solicitation's requirements.

"Similar cost magnitude" is defined as a project with a total value of approximately $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

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Adjective Ratings and Definitions for Evaluation of the Contractor's Performance

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG)

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's/Owner's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/ Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub- element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

FACTOR 4 - FINANCIAL SURETY:

Offerors are required to submit proof of their ability to obtain security for performance and payment bonds as outlined in FAR Part 28.2. Acceptable forms of security include corporate or individual sureties, or any of the types of security authorized in lieu of sureties by FAR Part 28.204 and as described in clauses 52.228-2, 52.228-14, and 52.228-15 included in the solicitation. The surety or bank shall attest to the offeror's ability to obtain security for 10% of the total proposed amount in the offeror's CLIN Schedule of the RFP for each of the performance and payment bonds. 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. If the offeror submits an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) as security for the bonds, 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 security to receive an Acceptable Rating.

Failure to provide the required information will result in an Unacceptable rating for this Factor.

Financial Surety Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

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.

Unacceptable

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:

Evaluation Procedures and Descriptions:

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

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

b. The price proposal is complete: To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data 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 offeror can successfully perform at the proposed price.

d. The price proposal is complete: To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data 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.

e. 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.

f. The price proposal is reasonable: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of each offeror's price proposal. Reasonableness and fairness will be determined by comparing the offerors' proposed prices against each other and the Independent Government or other techniques outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b).

The Government reserves the right to seek explanation of cost breakdowns. Any such request for explanation will constitute clarification or communication under FAR 15.306.

Offerors will not be permitted to change proposed prices unless the Government conducts discussions. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described herein.

Consideration is also given to the technical and functional capabilities of the offeror as compared to its price.

Price evaluations will not result in an assigned adjectival rating. Contract line items will be analyzed to determine whether unit prices proposed for the work to be performed are fair, reasonable, and balanced. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as, material, labor, equipment, etc. and indirect costs, such as, job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items.

Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price. Price proposals that are unrealistic when compared to the Government estimate and market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received indicate a lack of reasonableness or fairness.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Price proposals shall include the following:

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

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

c. Completed (Attachment D) Supplemental Price Breakdown and Cost Breakdown Sheet in an Excel format. Ensure figures and totals match Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule. This supplemental information may be used to aid the Government in determining the fairness and reasonableness of an offeror's proposed price. The total price reflected on the supplemental price breakdown sheet should correspond to the price submitted on the CLIN schedule. Any discrepancies could be considered a deficiency and result in an incomplete proposal evaluation.

C. Proposal Submission

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

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 proposals due date is: 4:00 PM EST 10 August 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.