AMD 03 W912ER20R0011.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Project Title: Afghanistan National Defense Security Forces (ANDSF) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Services

Please see continuation pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jun-2020

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 W912ER20R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-May-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Jun-2020

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:

W912ER20R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

1. The purpose of this Amendment is to revise and replace language in the solicitation as indicated by strike through and "Yellow" highlighting in sections “Special Contract Requirements” and “Source Selection Procedures.”

2. Projnet questions have been reopened per this Amendment, and will be closed on 30 June 2020, by 4:00 PM, EST.

3. This Amendment extends the closing period for requesting a code for access to submit proposals through the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) system from 22 June 2020 to 02 July 2020, by 4:00 PM, EST.

4. The deadline for proposal submission has been extended to 06 July 2020, by 12:00 PM, EST.

5. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) has been updated to version 3 (v3).

6. Attachment 13, Logistics Support Analysis is included.

7. Attachment 14, DoD SAFE User Guide is included.

8. Attachment 15, Projnet Closed Questions and Answers to date is included.

9. Provide clarification on SAFE and Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) instructions as indicated in section “Special Contract Requirements”.

10. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT 1:

TASK ORDER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRICING SCHEDULE (Post Award)

Note: Attachment 1 will only be used in Post award for new task orders and change orders.

ATTACHMENT 2:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT VERSION 3

ATTACHMENT 3:

DENSITY LIST

ATTACHMENT 4:

LOAD BANK TEST DATA FORM TOP END

ATTACHMENT 5:

LOAD BANK TEST DATA FORM MAJOR

ATTACHMENT 6:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT APPENDICIES 1 – 4, LINES OF DEMARCATION

ATTACHMENT 7:

GENERATOR ASSET DATA

ATTACHMENT 8:

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

ATTACHMENT 9:

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 10:

SERVICE ORDER 12 MONTH WORKLOAD DATA

ATTACHMENT 11:

ENG FORM 394 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION FORM

ATTACHMENT 12:

AFGHANISTAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) SITE MAPS

ATTACHMENT 13: LOGISTICS SUPPORT ANALYSIS (LSA) 1ST QTR 2020

ATTACHMENT 14: DoD SAFE USER GUIDE

ATTACHMENT 15: PROJNET CLOSED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ATTACHMENT A:

PROJECT EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW SHEET

ATTACHMENT B:

PROJECT EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT C:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT D: N/A

ATTACHMENT E:

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRICING SCHEDULE

Note: Offerors must submit Attachment E as part of their Factor 5 pricing proposal.

ATTACHMENT F:

CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT G:

RESPONSIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

ENCLOSURE A: FINANCIAL STANDING QUESTIONNAIRE

SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

This is a competitive acquisition for a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC). The requirement will be solicited on a full and open competition basis. The source selection process will be conducted using the best value tradeoff process described at FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the proposal that represents the best value to the Government as determined by the Source Selection Authority through evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.303(b)(4) and a comparative assessment of proposals received.

Proposals will be evaluated on five (5) evaluation factors: Factor 1 - Experience, Factor 2 – Phase-In and Organization Plan, Factor 3 – Management Approach, Factor 4 – Past Performance, and Factor 5 – Price. Non-pricing factors 1, 2, and 3 will receive adjectival ratings of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable as determined by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Factor 4, Past Performance, will receive adjectival ratings of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, and No Confidence. The price evaluation will not be numerically scored or otherwise assigned a rating but instead will be evaluated for balance, completeness, and reasonableness.

Performance Period: The Period of Performance (PoP) is a 24-month ordering period comprised of one (1) 12-month base period and one (1) 12-month option period.

Location for Receipt of Proposals: The proposals are to be received electronically by the proposal due date identified in the solicitation. Only electronic submissions will be accepted for this procurement. Proposals must be submitted electronically through the DoD SAFE site located at https://safe.apps.mil/. Each potential Offeror (Non-CAC user) must submit their entity’s information to the project’s point of contact (POC) Diane deLathouder at Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil and Joe Libbey at Joe.L.Libbey@usace.army.mil as verification that includes the official business name as it appears in the System for Award Management (SAM), email address, DUNS number, and CAGE/NCAGE code. The information is due to the previously mentioned POC not later than 22 June 2020 02 July 2020, by 4:00 PM EST. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure timely submission of all required information.

Bidder Inquiries: During the solicitation period, all correspondence with industry will be conducted strictly through the ProjNet (www.projnet.org) website using the bidder inquiry key, 3E63F6-PDHTB6 provided in this solicitation. The cut-off date for submission of inquiries will be fifteen (15) days prior to proposal submission. 30 June 2020, by 4:00 PM EST.

BASIS OF AWARD

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award of a contact will be made to one Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the best value (using the Price/Technical Trade-off process) to the Government.

The proposals will be evaluated on five (5) evaluation factors:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Phase-In and Organization Plan Factor 3 – Management and Technical Approach Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Price

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price in selecting the best value to the Government.

Unreasonably high or low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range based upon assessment that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unreasonable proposal. The Government intends to make one award for completion of the project identified in the solicitation. The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government. Competing proposals will be evaluated against the requirements of the solicitation to assess strengths, weaknesses and associated risks and deficiencies. The tradeoff process of evaluation between non-price and price aspects of the Offerors’ proposals will be used to determine the offer that represents the best value to the Government and may result in award of a contract.

In accordance with the FAR, no contract shall be entered into unless the PCO ensures that all requirements of law, Executive Orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsiveness. To be determined responsive, a proposal must meet the requirements set forth in the solicitation “Source Selection Procedures.” A proposal that is determined to be non-responsive will not be evaluated or considered for a contract award. Pursuant to FAR subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, the PCO must also make a determination of responsibility based on various elements including financial capability and integrity. To facilitate this determination and in compliance with the No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011, USACE will use the U.S. Army Central Command’s Vendor vetting system. Please see the information in “Source Selection Procedures” of this solicitation under TAB 6 of the Price Proposal Submittal for information on Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) registration.

BIDDER INQUIRIES

Bidder Inquiries: During the solicitation period, all correspondence with industry will be conducted strictly through the ProjNet (www.projnet.org) website using the bidder inquiry key, 3E63F6-PDHTB6 provided in this solicitation.

The cut-off date for submission of inquiries will be 15 days prior to proposal submission. 30 June 2020, by 4:00 PM EST. All correspondence between the SST members will be conducted via e-mail to the maximum extent possible, otherwise communications will be in person.

GENERAL

All Offerors are cautioned that it is their responsibility for the timely submission of all required information. Late submissions will not be considered. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror.

The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. Electronic proposal submissions are the only acceptable submission.

The proposal due date is: 29 June 2020 06 July 2020, by 12:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST).

FORMAT

Proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted electronically in three volumes. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section. The submission shall be clearly indexed (cross–indexed as appropriate) and logically assembled so that the Government can obtain a sufficient understanding of the Offeror’s qualifications and approach from the contents of the Offeror. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover page.

An Offeror’s proposal must be submitted as three separate files in PDF (or comparable) format; one file that includes the Volume 1 – Non-Price (Technical) proposal, the second file that includes the Volume 2 Past Performance, and the Volume 3 Price proposal. Offerors shall submit Attachment E (O&M Pricing Schedule) with their proposals in Excel format. Attachment 1 (Task Order O&M Pricing Schedule (Post-Award)) will only be used after contract award for new task orders and change orders. The proposals must be submitted electronically through the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) site located at https://safe.apps.mil/ as discussed in the paragraph below, Proposal Submission Requirements. DoD SAFE supports file sizes up to 8GB. All documents must be searchable.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Proposals must be submitted electronically through the DoD SAFE site located at https://safe.apps.mil/. Each potential Offeror (Non-CAC user) must submit their entity’s information to the project’s point of contact (POC) Diane deLathouder at Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil and Joe Libbey at Joe.L.Libbey@usace.army.mil as verification that includes the official business name as it appears in the System for Award Management (SAM), email address, DUNS number, and CAGE/NCAGE code. The information is due to the previously mentioned POC not later than 22 June 2020 02 July 2020, by 4:00 PM EST. Upon approval In response to timely submission of required information to the POC, each Offeror will receive a request code needed to upload the proposal documents into the DoD SAFE site. The request code is valid for fourteen (14) calendar days. Proposals are then due not later than 29 June 2020 06 July 2020, by 12:00 PM EST. This date shall be considered the proposal due date, after which proposal revision or submission will not be accepted.

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume 1 - Technical: Offerors shall submit a technical (non-price) proposal addressing Factors 1 - Experience, Factor 2 - Phase-in and Organization Plan, and Factor 3 - Management Approach.

Volume 2 - Past Performance: Offerors shall submit past performance documentation addressing Factor 4 - Past Performance.

Volume 3 - Price: Offerors shall submit pricing information addressing Factor 5 – Price. The price proposal shall be appropriately labeled and shall be organized and tabbed as indicated in the following chart.

TAB # CONTENTS OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

The Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, phone number, address, Tax Identification Number, DUNS number & CAGE number

2 The SF 1449 and acknowledgement of all Amendments (signed and dated SF 30)

3 Section B, Pricing Schedule & Completed Attachment E, Price List

4 Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of the Offeror

5 Contractor Contact Information Sheet (Attachment F)

6 Proof of JCCS registration

7 Financial Responsibility Worksheet (Attachment G)

8 Statement of Bankruptcy (if applicable)

9 Copy of JV Agreement (if applicable)

TAB 1 - The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2)(i)-(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors.

Obtaining a DUNS Number: The Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial company Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). If you do not have a DUNS number, call D&B at 1-866-705-5711 or access their website at the following web address: http://www.dnb.com/get-a-duns-number.html . The process to request a DUNS number via phone takes about 10 minutes and is free of charge. Internet requests are fulfilled within 24 hours. You must have a different nine-digit DUNS number for each physical location or address for your company as well as each legal division that may be co-located.

TAB 2 - The SF 1449, Solicitation, Offer, and Award boxes 30a, 30b, and 30c is to be completed by the Offeror and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the Offeror in accordance with FAR 4.102.

The acceptance period entered in boxes 30a, 30b, and 30c SF 1449 by the Offeror shall be 120 calendar days from the date specified in the solicitation. Include Offeror’s DUNS Number and CAGE Code to Block 30a. Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation, boxes 15A, 15B and 15C.

TAB 3 - The Pricing Schedule is to be completed in its entirety by the Offeror. In addition, Offeror shall include a completed Attachment E, Price List.

TAB 4 - The Offeror must complete the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” through the System for Award Management (SAM) website, please print and attach your completed Representations, Certifications. If the Offeror is a JV, each JV partner or entity must complete and attach the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” forms for its own organization, in addition to the “Reps and Certs” forms completed and submitted on behalf of the JV Offeror.

TAB 5 - A Contractor Contact Information Sheet is provided as (Attachment F). Offerors shall provide a primary and alternate point of contact.

TAB 6 - Proof of JCCS registration – Offeror must provide proof of registration in JCCS. The primary system for host nation vendor vetting for CENTCOM is the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS). Effective 01

October 2011, Offerors for all USACE solicitations shall be JCCS registered. Information on JCCS registration is available at the following web-site: https://www.jccs.gov .

The Offeror must provide proof of registration in the JCCS and must provide its Company JCCS Identification (ID) number. The Contract Specialist will search the JCCS database using the JCCS Company ID number supplied by the vendor to determine eligibility. Vendors not rejected are eligible for award and a statement to this effect shall be included in the PCO’s Responsibility Determination. Award will not be made to Offerors providing incomplete proposals.

TAB 7 - A Financial Responsibility Worksheet is provided as (Attachment G). In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “Purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104. FAR 9.104-1(a) requires that a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. As an aid in assessing responsibility, Offerors shall complete (Attachment G).

TAB 8 – Statement of Bankruptcy - Offerors shall include a statement in its pricing proposal as to whether the Offeror is in Bankruptcy proceedings or not, or is about to undergo bankruptcy proceedings. Offeror shall disclose any other information which could reasonably call into question the responsibility of the Offeror to perform this contract.

TAB 9 - Offeror shall provide a complete executed copy of a JV agreement (if applicable).

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

Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation. Offeror’s are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals. All questions and concerns shall be addressed, in writing, to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist prior to the closing date of the solicitation, providing adequate time for the Contracting Officer to answer the concerns.

Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly, may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offeror’s are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist if instructions are not understood.

JV’s an Offeror that is part of a JV must submit a legally binding JV agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capabilities of any Offeror’s that are not included in the JV agreement. JV must 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 and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a JV, the technical (i.e., experience, past performance, etc.) information of each of the JV partners can be submitted for the JV Entity. However, if the JV has no action on this project its information will not receive much consideration as it is not germane to the project at hand.

Key Subcontractors

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a key subcontract or supplier (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor part of the JV) a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor and the Prime Contractor shall be submitted with the proposal. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a JV Partner (for example, the Key Subcontractor is subsidiary of a JV Partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the JV partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Make sure to include as part of Volume 1.

Summary of formatting requirements for all volumes:

Font Type: Arial or Times New Roman (Screenshots/images are exempt from font requirements) Font Size: 12 for text pages; 10 for spreadsheets, diagrams, tables Margins: 1” Top, Bottom, Right & Left Page Size: 8.5” x 11” text pages; Pages larger than 8.5 x 11 shall count as two pages in determining page counts; (11” x 17” may be used for charts, diagrams, spreadsheets and tables with a 10 point font minimum). 10 point font may also be used in headers and footers of the Offeror’s proposal. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side.

Language: Proposals must be typed and submitted in English. Proposals submitted in a language other than English are unacceptable. Letters of Intent, licenses, 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 each partner that the English translation is true and correct. Sentence Spacing: Single

Paragraph Spacing – separated by at least one blank line

In addition, the Offeror shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of its proposal, including the cover page, narrative pages, fillable spreadsheets or forms and other documentation considered proprietary and source selection sensitive:

“Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” “Do not disclose any source selection information to any unauthorized person.”

NOTE: Pages submitted which exceed the required page limitations will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated.

Tables of contents, resumes, proposal cover letters, letters of commitment, and tabs between proposal information, past performance evaluation reports, and completed Past Performance Questionnaires do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal. 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations and will not count towards page limitations. Abbreviations and Acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in each volume. A list of acronyms, if included, will be excluded from the page count. Statements that cross-reference content ONLY within the same volume will be acceptable as long as the tab number and page number are indicated.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Experience Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall demonstrate its capability that it has performed services in the Central Command (CENTCOM) AOR that were similar to the types of services contemplated by this solicitation as described in the PWS. The CENTCOM AOR consists of: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Uzbekistan, and Yemen. The contractor’s experience should demonstrate performance, either as a prime or a subcontractor within the last six (6) years, from proposal submission.

For the purposes of this evaluation, qualifying projects shall be the same or similar in nature and complexity to the work specified in this solicitation. Offerors shall demonstrate experience in providing O&M services in maintaining critical systems such as power generation, waste water systems, HVAC, HVAC&R and water distribution system or similar. Construction projects for these systems will also be considered. The Offeror shall demonstrate a project or projects that show work is being performed in multiple locations (at least two) simultaneously. In addition, projects submitted must be at least 80% complete or on-going at the time of proposal submission and must represent a minimum value of $5 million per year.

The Offeror shall submit a completed Project Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A) capturing all projects being submitted for evaluation, as well as Project Experience Information Sheets (Attachment B). Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) projects and no more than six (6) projects that have been completed by the Offeror within the past six (6) years or are currently being performed and well underway (at least 80% complete or on-going). If more than six (6) projects are submitted for this factor, only the first six (6) will be evaluated.

Factor 1 – Experience – Evaluation

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 $5M and complexity in the past six (6) years and as stated in the solicitation.

If an Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) partner, then it shall explain in detail how the Experience factor is met through the contributions of all members of the JV partner.

Greater weight will be placed by the Government on a proposal that demonstrates the following:

Projects performed in Afghanistan;

Projects performed for the U.S. Government in Afghanistan;

Projects similar to the types of services contemplated by this solicitation with a

Magnitude greater than $10 million;

Project or projects that demonstrate simultaneous work in more than two locations;

Projects that demonstrate the appropriate type of experience and are 100% complete.

FACTOR 1: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The Factor 1 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 Factor 1 evaluation requirements.

Color Rating Adjectival RATING Description

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

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

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is 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 2 – Phase-in and Organization Plan Submission Requirements

i. Phase-in Plan (10 Page Limit, Charts do not count against the limit)

The Offeror shall submit a Phase-In Plan in accordance with PWS Section C-2.1.1, Phase-In Operations as part of Factor 2. The Phase-In Plan shall clearly explain how the contractor plans to phase-in personnel, equipment and material into ports of debarkation in Afghanistan. The plan shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed description of how the Offeror will perform reception, staging, onward movement, and integration of deploying personnel, equipment, and material in Afghanistan and provide all required documentation for all employees, at all tiers, fitness for duty, dental and medical screening and vaccinations, based on the category of employees to enter into and work in Afghanistan.

ii. Organization Plan (5 Page Limit, charts do not count against the page limit)

The Offeror shall include an Organization Plan in its proposal as part of Factor 2. The Organization Plan shall describe, in detail, the Offeror’s proposed approach to handling multiple projects at different locations simultaneously and its methods to maintain schedules and stay within budget using the staff proposed in the Organizational Chart.

The Offeror shall submit an Organizational Chart as part of the Organization Plan that outlines clear and direct chains of authority. This includes, but is not limited to, the proposed team (prime contractor, joint venture, and key subcontractors). The Organizational Chart shall list names of individuals, titles and shall identify staff that will interact with the U.S. Government. The proposed personnel identified to interact with the U.S. Government must be fluent in English.

The Organizational Chart shall show that the Quality Control personnel are separate from, and not subordinate to, the Project Management personnel. The chart shall also show the direct lines of communication between the Quality Control organization, project management and senior management organization.

Factor 2 – Phase-in and Organization Plan Evaluation Requirements

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Phase-In Plan and Organization Plan to assess the Offeror’s ability to execute and manage O&M projects involving multiple geographically dispersed work locations in a contingency environment.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Phase-In Plan to ensure the Offeror has demonstrated its ability to provide full contract performance following the phase-in period (on day 61).

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the Offeror proposes an organizational structure that shows clear roles and responsibilities and excellent communication networks to manage O&M projects involving multiple geographically dispersed work locations in a contingency environment.

A proposal that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide full contract performance for the decisive site list following the phase-in period (on day 46 61);

Offerors with current base access or base access within the past year in the CENTCOM AOR;

Offerors with a presence in Afghanistan;

Offerors whose proposals effectively demonstrate organizational structure, processes, and procedures that minimize risk to the Government;

Offerors providing detailed narratives which clearly identify critical phase-in schedule related issues and potential problems and discuss meaningful mitigation strategies to avoid sources of potential delays.

FACTOR 2: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The Factor 2 ratings 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 Factor 2 evalaution 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, Factor 3 – Management Approach Submission Requirements

i. Management Approach (12 Page Limit)

The Offeror shall provide a narrative to the PWS requirements that demonstrates an understanding of the methodology and scope of services outlined in the solicitation as part of Factor 3. The Offeror shall describe the manner in which the Offeror proposes meeting the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror shall provide an orderly, logical, effective arrangement of steps or processes necessary to meet the requirements.

Describe in narrative form the technical approach to be utilized in O&M services for facilities at various locations, to include the following areas:

a. Operation of facility systems and equipment, including energy plants;

b. Scheduled (preventive) maintenance;

c. Repair, replacement and renovation of facility systems and components, utility systems and components, and building and site O&M services for Government and civilian facilities;

d. Site safety and health plan;

e. Site quality control plan;

f. Compliance with codes and standards;

g. Procurement of spare parts/ inventory management/ logistics support/ warehousing and spare parts management.

ii. Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) (5 Page Limit)

The Offeror must demonstrate its capability to provide a web-based Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in accordance with requirements described in Section C-4.8, CMMS, of the PWS. This includes a detailed description of all personnel, logistics support, security requirements and management required necessary to provide, operate and maintain all hardware and software to support an automated database of infrastructure and facility maintenance and repair services.

Subcontractors: Information required above shall be provided for each proposed key subcontractor who is anticipated to perform a significant portion of the effort. The Government recognizes that completion of a project is often a team effort. An Offeror that intends to utilize a key subcontractor shall submit a Letter of Intent signed by each key subcontractor. Key subcontractors are defined as those subcontractors where the anticipated total subcontract value is 20% or more of the total contract value.

Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of proposed key subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor’s experience evaluation with the Offeror during any discussions. Subcontractors with no experience in contracts of similar nature and complexity may provide the equivalent information on company officials and/or personnel proposed for this action.

Factor 3 – Management Approach Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach and CMMS capability to assess the Offeror’s ability to execute and manage an O&M project involving multiple geographically dispersed work locations in a contingency environment.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management approach to ensure it has addressed items a-h above and demonstrates the ability to comply with these requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide and maintain a CMMS that demonstrates the system functions and features as described in PWS C-4.8.

Management capability to perform multiple concurrent services in various geographically dispersed locations in the same country within the CENTCOM AOR;

Offeror is currently utilizing CMMS;

Offeror’s ability to procure spare parts in Afghanistan and have the ability to ship and receive parts into

Afghanistan;

Offerors that provide firm commitments (such as through a contract or executed teaming arrangement) with proposed subcontractors or JV partners;

Offeror provided narratives which demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of all of the elements of the project scope of work;

FACTOR 3: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The Factor 3 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 Factor 3 evaluation 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, Factor 4 - Past Performance Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit relevant past performance questionnaires (PPQ, Attachment C) on all projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience. Relevant efforts are defined as those similar in complexity, magnitude, and scope of the work as required by the Request for Proposal (RFP). Relevant past performance information is also required to be submitted for each proposed key subcontractor.

The Factor 4 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. Projects that are submitted that do not meet the criteria for “recency” will not be evaluated.

For the purposes of this evaluation:

Recency, "recently completed," project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last six (6) years of the RFP issuance date, and (2) 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 a project similar to the types of services contemplated by this solicitation as described in the PWS.

"Similar cost magnitude" is defined as a project with a total value of at least $5 million.

a. Past performance refers to the quality of project performance from the owner’s perspective. The Offeror shall provide an English speaking customer reference name(s), company affiliation, and current contact information for each of the projects submitted under Factor 1 - Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The project owner points of contact/clients shall have firsthand knowledge and information of the Offeror’s past performance in connection with the projects submitted. The points of contact/clients provided cannot be affiliated with the Offeror in any manner or capacity, must be independent, and must be willing to answer questions. The Government may contact and interview points of contact/clients and reserves the right to interview other individuals with knowledge of the listed project performance. FALSIFIED PPQ’S MAY BE

GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL.

b. The PPQ form included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project included in Factor 1 - Experience. The Offeror should include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the Offeror was rated. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted in response to other Solicitations; Offerors must provide their PPQs for this solicitation.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c. A PPQ or Past Performance Evaluations Retrieved from CPARS shall be submitted for each project submitted under Factor 1, Experience. If Offerors are unable to obtain a completed PPQ for a project then they must, at a minimum, complete the client contact information on the first page of the PPQ to allow the Government to ability to attempt to contact the client, if they so choose. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of work, timeliness, on budget, safety, management, warranty, client satisfaction, etc.

The Government will not release any interview information to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

d. 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 Evaluations Retrieved from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, JV, 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.

e. 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.

f. If the Offeror is a JV or partnership, past performance information should be presented for each partner in the JV or partnership. Although the Government prefers all members of a JV or partnership to have satisfied or excelled in all areas pertaining to past performance, the Government will consider the complimentary aspects of the separate participants in a JV or partnership, by evaluating the JV or partnership as a whole. For each project submitted for past performance consideration, the Offeror’s proposal describes the role of the JV partner for that specific project; and 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.

g. Completed PPQ’s should be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client/reference requests, questionnaires can be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Diane E. deLathouder, via email at Diane.E.deLathouder@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date.

Data concerning the Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed subcontractor, in alphabetical order.

The Offeror shall also submit a letter of authorization from each proposed key subcontractor consenting to the disclosure of its past performance information to the Offeror.

The Offeror shall provide copies of past performance evaluations for projects performed for the U.S. Government:

If the project provided has past performance evaluations, it must be used by the Offeror to demonstrate past performance.

If past performance evaluations retrieved from CPARS submission is used to validate past performance, it will be the most recent evaluation in the system (i.e. for projects submitted as completed, the final 100% completed past performance evaluations shall be provided).

If the Offeror submits a past performance evaluation, they are not required to submit a separate PPQ for the same project. However, the Government reserves the right to verify the information depicted in the Offeror’s submitted past performance evaluations.

If submitting a proposal as a JV and there is no past performance history on the JV and/or Partnership, the past performance of each of the JV partners can be submitted for the JV entity.

If the Offeror possesses no relevant past performance, it should affirmatively state this fact under this factor.

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 aspect to evaluate is 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 six (6) years, as of the date of the RFP issued, or (2) is currently performing O&M services that are at least 80% complete or on-going 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 similar to the types of services contemplated by this solicitation as described in the PWS, "Similar cost magnitude" is defined as a project with a total value of at least $5 million.

Within the relevancy aspect, an Offeror's past performance is evaluated to determine how relevant the Offeror's demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. The Government's assessment under the Relevancy Assessment of past performance is a significant contributor to the final past performance rating; however, it is not a formal rating in and of itself. The following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of an Offeror's past performance.

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.

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 recency 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, past performance evaluations retrieved from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (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…