W912ER-19-R-0024_Amendment_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Refer to SF-30 Block 14 Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912ER19R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Sep-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Oct-2019

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

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:

W912ER19R0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

CONTINUATION SHEET

1. The Proposal Schedule and Cost Breakdown have been replaced in their entirety.

2. Solicitation Section 00 21 00, Factor 4 Financial Surety, the amount for Performance and Payment Bonds has been clarified. New text has been added and deleted text is shown using strikeout

3. 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 revised sections.

Section 26 11 16 Paragraph 3.2 – page 19

Section 26 20 02 Paragraph 2-17 “Operation and Maintenance” – pages 32 and 33

4. Drawings: Revisions to the following drawing is identified by a triangle placed on the drawing near each revision and a “cloud” drawn around both the triangle and change.

Drawing XE-504

5. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

A AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

B PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

C PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT

D BASIS FOR AWARD

E NON-PRICING PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

F PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTOR

G MAGNITUDE OF PROJECT

H

SUBMITTING QUESTIONS THROUGH BIDDER INQUIRY IN

PROJNET

I ADDRESSING PROPOSALS

52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

52.204-16 COMMERCIAL & 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

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (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 ANTITERRORISM AWARENESS TRAINING FOR

CONTRACTORS

252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE

INFORMATION CONTROLS

252.215-7008 ONLY ONE OFFER

252.236-7008 CONTRACT PRICE – BIDDING SCHEDULE

252.236-7010 OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION – PREFERENCE FOR

UNITED STATES FIRMS

252.236-7013 REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION OPPORTUNITY FOR

AMERICAN STEEL PRODUCERS, FABRICATORS, AND

MANUFACTURERS

A. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Funds will be available at the time of award. This project is funded through a Cooperative Agreement between the United States Department of Defense and the Kuwait Ministry of Defense governed by Title 10 US Code 2350J.

Funds have been previously provided from the Government of Kuwait to the U.S. Government. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation either before or after the closing date, and there shall be no legal liability on the part of the Government, to include liability for Contractor’s proposal costs.

B. PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

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

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

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

i. Solicitation number

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

iii. Offeror’s Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number, Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE) Code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN)

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

c. VOLUME I TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s technical proposal is described under Basis of Award. Do not submit pricing information with the technical proposal.

i. Factor 1: Technical Approach

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

iii. Factor 3: Preliminary Schedule

iv. Factor 4: Financial Surety

v. Subcontractor Letters of Commitment, where applicable

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

vii. Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Section 00 45 00)

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

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

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

__Proof of ability to obtain bonds, Irrevocable Letter of Commitment (ILC) or other surety in accordance with FAR Part 28.

d. VOLUME II PRICE PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s price proposal is described under the price evaluation, Factor 5, Price. Within an offeror’s price proposal, the following shall also be submitted:

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

ii. Completed Standard Form (SF) 1442, Section 00 11 00, Contract Line Item (CLIN) Schedule.

iii. Completed Supplemental (Attachment G) Price Breakdown and Cost breakdown sheet in an Excel format.

Ensure figures and totals match Section 00 11 00, CLIN Schedule.

iv. Completed information identified in the “Submission Requirements” within the “Questionnaire - Request for Information For Purposes of Conducting a Responsibility Determination”. At a minimum, the offeror should complete and submit the following documents together as a separate tab within the price proposal:

1. Attachment A (Financial Standing Questionnaire), and

2. Attachment B (Calculation of Self Performed Work), and

3. All other narratives requested within the questionnaire.

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

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

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

C. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT

The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of any responses to this solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions to offerors are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

Any and all amendments to the solicitation will be issued electronically at the Federal Business Opportunities website (http://www.fbo.gov/). It is an offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this solicitation and acknowledge any and all amendments in its proposal submission.

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

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

Use of the words “will”, “shall”, or “must” indicates a mandatory requirement for which failure to comply, at the time and date for submission of proposals, shall result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified, unless the Government determined to conduct discussions IAW FAR 15.306, thereby providing a means by which appropriate corrections by the offeror(s) involved can be made. Failure to comply with non-pricing or pricing requirements that are annotated with the words “should” or “may” can result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings, and may have a significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award. Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

PROPOSAL FORMAT

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

b. A JV is defined as follows: 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 alliance”, which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

c. Offerors proposing as JVs shall provide evidence that the JV as a legal entity has been duly formed. JV’s shall include a copy of the legal JV agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the JV with the chief executive of each entity identified. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any contractors that are not included in the JV agreement.

d. If submitting a proposal as a JV, the experience, and past performance of each of the JV partners can be submitted for the JV entity. The experience for each JV partner will be considered the experience of the JV entity. Page and project form limits apply to the JV as a whole.

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

or

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT - CETAM-CT-A MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT - CETAM-CT-A

ATTN: MARIA RODEFFER/ W912ER-19-R-

ATTN: MARIA RODEFFER/ W912ER-19-R-0024

201 PRINCE FREDERICK DRIVE P.O. Box 2250

WINCHESTER, VA 22602 WINCHESTER, VA 22604

Your proposal is due no later than 7 23 October 2019, 2:00PM EDT, Winchester, VA to the above address.

Late Proposals: Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the Government after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and –

1) if it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, and it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 4:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or

2) there is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or

3) it is the only proposal received. However, a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

Amendments to the RFP. Any and all amendments to the RFP will be issued electronically via the Federal Business Opportunities website. It is the offeror’s responsibility to continuously check for any amendments to this RFP 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 RFP.

Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit. A site visit shall be conducted during the RFP period. Refer to Site Visit Clause 52.236-27 for additional information.

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

An offeror proposing as a JV shall provide evidence that the JV as a legal entity has been duly formed. JV’s shall include a copy of the legal JV agreement signed by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each JV partner, with the chief executive of each entity identified. A prospective offeror that submits a proposal as a JV may not change their JV firms, if selected for award.

System for Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including Joint Venture (JV) entities) shall be registered in SAM and determined to be responsible prior to Award. For more information, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. Please ensure that NAICS code 221122 – Electric Power Distribution is listed in your SAM registration.

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

Discussions. The Government intends to make a contract award without conducting 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

Attn: Maria Rodeffer, CETAM-CT

W912ER-19-R-0024

201 Prince Frederick Drive Winchester, VA 22602

Primary NAICS Code and Business Size Standard.

The Primary NAICS Code is 221122 with a small business current size standard of 1,000 employees.

D. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the Government will evaluate technical or non-price proposals to determine offerors who are responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1; who are responsive to the solicitation requirements;

and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meets the technical standards for non-price factors.

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

Definitions

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

3. There may be contained within the evaluation factors certain mandatory or minimum requirements to be met for evaluation. There are also contained within the described factors certain documents for submission. Failure to satisfy any mandatory or minimum requirement may result in a determination that a proposal is unacceptable.

4. The Government intends to select one offeror for an award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions if the Government determines that to do so would be in its best interest. Therefore, an offeror’s proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and pricing standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

E. NON-PRICING PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

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

Subcontractors: The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. An offeror that intends to utilize a major subcontractor shall submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by each major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who performs twenty percent (20%) or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts or those performing 20% or more of the total dollar value of the project. Offerors that propose to use designers of record (DORs) are also required to submit firm, unequivocal letters of commitment signed by their DORs. The Government will not consider in relation to the requirements of this Solicitation the qualifications of, or other proposal information pertaining to, subcontractors or DORs for which acceptable letters of commitment have not been provided

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

An offeror proposing as a joint venture shall provide evidence that the joint venture as a legal entity has been duly formed. A Joint Venture offeror shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each co-venturer, with the authorized representative of each entity identified. A prospective offeror that submits a proposal as a Joint Venture may not change either/any co-venturer, if selected for award

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

FACTOR 4: FINANCIAL SURETY

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Relative importance of the evaluation factors: For evaluation purposes, Technical Approach (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Preliminary Schedule (Factor 3), are of equal importance. All non-pricing factors, when combined, are approximately equal to Price (Factor 5).

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

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 1, Technical Approach, consists of two elements: Management Approach and Prior Experience. The two elements are equal in importance to each other. Factor 1 will be evaluated in its entirety resulting in an assignment of a single technical approach rating.

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

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Element 1 - Management Approach

An offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work (SOW) for the project and describes the offeror’s approach to completing the work. An offeror’s narrative should identify all major scope components of the project, including critical components. The narrative should include a discussion of an offeror’s planned technical approach that addresses shipping and logistics (air, land, and sea), local labor and subcontractor markets, local laws, anticipated challenges to the project, and the requirements associated with placement of medium voltage electric lines.

The narrative shall also address the following:

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

Offeror shall provide a copy of its Kuwait Business License both in its original form, as well as a copy translated in English.

b. Base Access: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with Camp Buehring’s base access security requirements. 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.

c. 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 along with an accompanying narrative, which shows the relationship and how work flows through the organization between the offeror’s home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. 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% of more of the total dollar value of the project.

Element 2 - Prior Experience

Although an offeror may highlight any experience it has gained, to include experience with the placement of medium voltage electric lines, an offeror’s narrative, shall pertain to the offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with construction challenges within the last five (5) years, and how these experiences will positively impact its performance handling a D-B-B project in Kuwait. As part of its narrative, an offeror should address process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address construction challenges.

For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the offeror’s prior experience in dealing with construction challenges, not on those project metrics required to conduct a past performance relevancy evaluation.

A separate project relevancy analysis will be completed under the past performance factor.

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

a. Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

b. Procurement of long lead items.

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

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

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

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

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

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

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

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

c. Organization: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to manage the project. The Government will assess an offeror’s proposed project organization for well-defined roles, responsibilities, and authority delegated to its team. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s organizational chart and narrative to determine the effectiveness of the relationships and work flow between the offeror’s home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any JV partners if applicable.

Element 2 - Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with heavy vehicle maintenance facilities placement of medium voltage electric lines construction and construction challenges to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with construction and give greater weight to those projects dealing with placement of medium voltage electric lines construction to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Additional Greater Weight Considerations:

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

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained a security clearance and gate passes to work on a Kuwait military base for previous or current projects.

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

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

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

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

Proposal Submission Requirements:

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date.

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

“Similar scope” is defined as the placement of medium voltage electric lines & supply of packaged type substations, design, construction, supply, installation, testing & commissioning including transportation & lifting / unloading of "packaged type substations"

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $2 million.

An offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment C), Construction Experience Form (Attachment D) and Relevancy Matrix (Attachment E). The offeror should include a project description on the Construction Experience Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and magnitude. The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Construction Experience Form (Attachment D).

An offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance for the applicable project submitted and may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such elements as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, and warranty work. References should be the contracting agency or entity that administers the contract such as the construction agent, owner, or Government representative. The offeror’s references should be independent and willing and available to answer questions. The offeror should also ensure that each reference is notified that he/she may be contacted for the purposes of the evaluation. The Government may contact and interview references provided, and additionally reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the reference provided, if the reference is not available.

When submitting past performance information for consideration, the offeror is limited to at least two (2) but no more than five (5) projects that have been performed by the offeror. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the offeror. The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the past performance information for the JV-offeror, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the JV partner on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner will be performing on the solicitation project. The Government will not consider for evaluation under this factor the past performance of any subcontractors.

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

An offeror should follow up with clients to ensure that PPQ-0 submissions are in accordance with the solicitation requirements and the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQ-0’s may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Ms. Maria Rodeffer at Maria.c.rodeffer@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQ-0’s for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQ-0’s by reference into their proposals.

In addition to the PPQ-0’s, the offeror is permitted to submit DD Form 2626 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for projects submitted. Past performance information such as awards, certificates, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition shall not be submitted as this information will not be evaluated. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted in the appropriate space provided on the Construction Experience Form (Attachment D).

FALISIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF

AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF

THE OFFEROR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

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

Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); Government field representatives; and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

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

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

b. Relevance: The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror is to the solicitation’s effort.

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

“Similar scope” is defined is defined as the placement of medium voltage electric lines & supply of packaged type substations, design, construction, supply, installation, testing & commissioning including transportation & lifting / unloading of "packaged type substations.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $2 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.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Neutral Confidence

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

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

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

Greater Weight Considerations:

a. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on a recently completed, relevant project that includes placement of medium voltage electric lines.

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

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

FACTOR 3: PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

An offeror shall provide a preliminary schedule for work associated with all base and options items. The offeror’s schedule should include all associated schedule relationships, as well as “critical path” elements and major construction activity milestones identified below with a total project duration of 418 calendar days from notice-to-proceed (NTP).

Proposal Submission Requirements:

An offeror’s proposed schedule shall include the following major construction activity milestones:

a. Contract award date of o/a 15 Nov 19

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

c. Obtain access to Camp Buehring Base

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

e. Procurement of long lead items

f. Mobilization

g. Demobilization

h. Project completion

An offeror should demonstrate a further understanding of the project…