W912ER20R0015 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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide Projnet Bidder Inquiry 535K8I-IJG62N.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Apr-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 W912ER20R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-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 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

09-Apr-2020

CODE

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT (CETAM-CT)

201 PRINCE FREDERICK DRIVE

WINCHESTER VA 22602

W912ER 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ER20R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 00

PHASE ONE: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

This solicitation is for a firm-fixed price contract for construction services in Kuwait using a Two Phase design-build procurement process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Transatlantic Middle East District (TAM), has a requirement from the Kuwait Ministry of Defence to construct two (2) logistics warehouses, food storage buildings and supporting facilities to include, related infrastructure, fire protection, electrical distribution, administrative facilities, shelving and racking, and all associated utilities, and site improvements to support a complete and usable facility. These planned warehouses will provide air-conditioned, climate-controlled space for storage of material and equipment.

Qualification proposals are requested under Phase One. Following the evaluation of Phase One proposals, the most highly qualified offerors will be selected and requested to submit Phase Two proposals. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase Two, from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract.

Magnitude of Construction: The estimated price range of this construction project is between $25 million and $100 million.

The Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) with a small business size of $39.5 million.

System for Award Management (SAM). Contractors (including Joint Venture entities) shall be registered in SAM, and determined to be responsible prior to Award. For more information, see the SAM website at (https://beta.sam.gov/). Please ensure that NAICS code 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction is listed in your SAM registration.

B. QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, 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 beta System for Award Management (https://beta.sam.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 in accordance with 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 in accordance with 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, or not being selected, for the contract award. Time periods, if stated as numbers of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT

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.

Pricing information is not required and shall not be submitted in Phase One.

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/ Phase One

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 DUNS Number, 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 QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL: The information required within an offeror’s technical proposal is described under Basis of Phase One Evaluations. Do not submit pricing information with the technical proposal.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Subcontractor Letters of Commitment, where applicable.

d. VOLUME II FACTOR 3: FINANCIAL SURETY AND REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATION: Do not submit pricing information.

FACTOR 3: FINANCIAL SURETY

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

Completed Corporate Certificate/Authority to Bind Partnership (Attachment A).

__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 joint venture, completed Corporate Certificate for each member of the joint venture and a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

Completed Representation and Certifications (Section 00 45 00).

Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are 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 required attachments, or to fill out attachments completely and properly, 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.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

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

b. An offeror’s proposal must be submitted as two separate files in PDF format: one file, which includes the

Volume I – Non-Price (Technical) proposal, and the second file which includes the Volume II Financial Surety and certifications. The proposal must be submitted electronically through the DOD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) site located at https://safe.apps.mil/ (Non-CAC Users) as discussed in Proposal Submission Instructions. SAFE site supports file sizes up to 2GB. Each volume must include the content and adhere to the format discussed in Section II.B.1, above. All documents must be searchable.

c. 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; I.E. A4. Margins shall be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”), font face should be Arial, and font size shall be no smaller than 12-point font. Page is defined as a sheet of paper with text on both sides. Pages furnished for organizational purposes only, such as a cover page, tabs or separator pages or a table of contents are not included in the page limitation. Corporate certificates, Partnership agreements, Letters of Intent and Licenses are also not included in page limitations.

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.” 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 their proposals. Each volume of the proposal must contain a table of contents, a summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion. Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals must be submitted electronically to Shanda Weekes at Shanda.Weekes@usace.army.mil and Ms. Maria Martin at Maria.L.Martin@usace.army.mil through the DOD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) site located at https://safe.apps.mil/ (Non-CAC Users).

Phase One proposals are due not later than June 8th, 2020 at 10:00 AM Eastern Time (ET). This date shall be considered the proposal due date, after which proposal revisions will not be accepted.

Facsimile Proposals are not permitted. It is an offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the Government system by the date and time of the proposal deadline, e.g., undeliverable messages due to an offeror’s proposal size or IT issues are not the responsibility of the Government.

A total of one (1) electronic copy submitted through the Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) site must be received on or before the closing due date and time specified above.

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.

D. SOLICITATION INQUIRIES

1. All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. Bidder Inquiry is a web-based program that allows bidders to post questions regarding the solicitation and view all questions by other bidders and responses by USACE. Bidder Inquiry can be accessed through ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

a. Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions will be rejected.

b. Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question(s) via email, followed by an answer to their question(s) after it has been processed by our technical team. Offerors may view all bidder inquiries through ProjNet.

c. Inquiries must be submitted at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal due date. Offerors will not be able to submit inquiries after this date as the ProjNet system must be shut down.

2. To submit and review bid inquiries, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access.

The Bidder Inquiry Key: 535K8I-IJG62N

3. Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

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

b. Identify the Agency as USACE.

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

d. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

e. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

f. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer, as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

g. Click Add User. Once this is completed, you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

4. Submit questions or review questions and answers. A bidder who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that their question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer is then available for all other bidders to review.

5. For specific step-by-step for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES, see the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

6. For questions about the ProjNet-®, please contact the Call Center help desk toll free at 1-800-428-HELP, which operates from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern US time zone). ProjNet-® questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@rcesupport.com.

7. Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit. No pre-proposal conference or site visit will be conducted during Phase One. A pre-proposal conference and site visit may be conducted during Phase Two.

E. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

Unsuccessful offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5. An unsuccessful offeror may request a pre-award debriefing or a post-award debriefing after award by submitting a written request to the contracting officer within three (3) days after receipt of the notice excluding the offeror from the competition and award.

Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

F. BASIS OF PHASE ONE EVALUATION

1. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the Government will evaluate qualification proposals to identify those offerors whose proposals are responsive to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, meet the technical standards for non-price factors. The Government intends to advance up to five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase Two from which it anticipates awarding one firm-fixed-price contract. It may advance fewer than five (5) offerors and will exercise discretion in determining the number of offerors to be advanced to Phase Two, determining a reasonable cut-off between offerors advanced and offerors not advanced. The SSA will take into account the Government’s interest in competition and its interests in awarding to a highly qualified contractor, and in preventing avoidable expenditure on Phase Two proposal preparation by offerors without realistic prospects of award.

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 to each proposal for each evaluation factor.

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 offeror 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/or 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. A final determination that a proposal is unacceptable means that the offeror will not be selected as a most highly qualified offeror and the Government will not request that the offeror submit a Phase Two proposal. This does not limit the Government’s discretion to exclude offerors without any “unacceptable” ratings from Phase Two because they were not found to be among the most highly qualified offerors.

4. The Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors 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 standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined by the contracting officer to be necessary or requested by the source selection authority (SSA).

G. PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

All of the submission items to be evaluated shall pertain to the offeror and its major subcontractors. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the 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 one or more major subcontractor(s), shall submit a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by each major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that performs twenty percent (20%) or more of the total on-site management and construction efforts or one that performs twenty percent or more of the total dollar value of the project. Offerors that propose to use a designer of record (DOR) are also required to submit firm, unequivocal letters of commitment signed by their DORs. An offeror’s technical proposal will largely be diminished in the evaluation and selection process unless a required letter of commitment is provided which establishes the likelihood that the proposed subcontractor(s) will actually be available for this project.

If an offeror’s accepted proposal includes the use of any major subcontractors or DORs, the offeror shall not change major subcontractors or DORs without the contracting officer’s approval. If an offeror proposes to change major subcontractors or DORs after award, the offeror shall not change major subcontractors or DORs without the contracting officer’s approval. Approval will not be given unless the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equal or better in all respects to the originally proposed major subcontractor or DOR and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

Joint Ventures: A Joint Venture (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. A JV’s offeror shall include a copy of the its legal JV agreement signed by an authorized representative who can bind the entity of each conventurer, with the chief executive of each entity identified. A prospective offeror that submits a proposal as a JV may not change either/any the joint venturers, if selected for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: FINANCIAL SURETY

Relative importance of Phase One evaluation factors:

Factors 1, Technical Approach, and Factor 2, Past Performance, are of equal weight. Factor 3, Financial Surety, is an acceptable/ unacceptable factor and, thus, will receive a rating of either acceptable or unacceptable. This factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to obtain financial surety in accordance with FAR Part 28.

To receive consideration for Phase Two participation, an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1 through 2 each, and an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 3.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 1, Technical Approach, consists of two components: Management Approach and Prior Experience. The two components 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.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Component 1: Management Approach

An offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work 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), phasing, local labor and subcontractor markets, local laws, anticipated challenges to the project, and the unique requirements associated with designing and constructing two (2) logistics warehouses and associated facilities, systems, and utilities required by the solicitation.

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 documentary evidence and any necessary narrative to prove that they are currently registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform construction work in Kuwait, or a detailed and supported plan to become properly registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform construction work in Kuwait.

b. Base Access and Security Requirements: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with base access security requirements at Subhan Military Complex in Kuwait.

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 should 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 and those who will perform design. The offeror should identify how it plans to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and explain the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. The offeror should 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, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the offeror should clearly state the roles of any joint venture partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

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

The management approach portion of an offeror’s proposal will be limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, not including organizational chart(s) or letters of commitment. Any pages beyond fifteen (15) will not be evaluated and will be ignored.

Component 2: Prior Experience

An offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed five (5) pages, that outlines how its experience on prior projects will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

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

For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the Offeror’s prior experience in dealing with design and 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 of this component, the Government is focused on the offeror’s prior experience. If an offeror discusses experience of its proposed DOR and/or major subcontractor(s), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the DOR and/or subcontractor(s) must be included in the offeror’s proposal. If this requisite letter of commitment is not submitted, the prior experience of the DOR and 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 component as follows:

Component 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, the major scope components of the project, and anticipated challenges. The Government will also 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 Kuwait, or if the offeror has provided sufficient proof that they are currently registered, licensed, and legally permitted to perform construction work in Kuwait, such as a copy of the license, in the original form and translated in English.

b. Base Access: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements at Subhan Military Complex. 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 the offeror’s plan to integrate its design team/proposed designer of record (DOR) into its organization and how well the offeror defines the roles the design team/DOR will play in the decision-making process. 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, its design team/DOR, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any joint venture partners if applicable.

Component 2: Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with design and construction challenges to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

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 from the Kuwait Ministry of Defence (KMOD) to work on a Kuwait military base for previous or current projects.

c. Greater weight will be given to offerors with prior USACE construction experience in Kuwait.

d. 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:

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 past performance record.

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 (5) five years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction and at least 75% complete as of the RFP issuance date.

A “relevant” project is defined as a project with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation. In addition, whether a project is “recent” will be considered in determining the project’s relevance. Projects performed by the offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more “relevant” for the purpose of the Past Performance evaluation.

“Similar scope” is defined as the design and/or construction of a project that includes new construction of pre-engineered metal buildings and concrete masonry unit construction, including site infrastructure (electrical distribution system, fire protection system, administrative facilities, shelving and racking, communications, water, sewer, and pavement), earthworks, grading and drainage. While the greatest similarity will be attributed to projects with all of these elements, the most important of these elements for similarity will be design and construction of pre-engineered metal buildings.

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

A. Proposal Submission Requirements:

An offeror shall submit past performance project information for each project using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment B), Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C) and Relevance Matrix (Attachment D). The offeror should include a project description on the Design/Construction Experience Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and magnitude. The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

An offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance for the each project submitted and may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such elements as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, and warranty work. References should be knowledgeable personnel with 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, 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 (a) at least one but no more than three (3) projects that have been performed by the offeror, and (b) at least one but no more than three (3) design projects that have been performed by the offeror’s proposed design team/designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach.

Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation. The first three (3) projects listed for the offeror and the offeror’s proposed design team/designer of record will be considered.

An offeror may submit projects for evaluation for which it performed as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. If an offeror submits a project on which it performed as a subcontractor, the offeror must sufficiently describe the work it performed as a subcontractor.

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 other than the offeror’s proposed design team /designer of record identified in Factor 1, Technical Approach.

Past performance information related to projects performed by an offeror for itself or for another member of its corporate team (e.g. a facility constructed by the offeror for a parent company) will not be evaluated under this factor.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) (Attachment E) 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. The Government is under no obligation to employ any particular measure to obtain past performance information directly from the offeror’s clients. In order to ensure that projects are considered under this factor, offerors should obtain completed PPQs. In its evaluation, the Government reserves the right to rely on data collected from other sources, including, but not limited to, Government investigations and interviews.

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. Shanda Weekes at Shanda.Weekes@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQ-0s for submitted projects, which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQ-0s 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 Design/Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

FALISIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (INCLUDING PPQ-0s) MAY BE GROUNDS FOR

DISQUALIFICATION OF AN

OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR SUSPENSION OR DEBARMENT,

AND

REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.

The Government reserves the right to contact and interview references and clients submitted by an offeror. The Government also reserves the right to use any means available to the Government to verify past performance information, including information not submitted by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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); 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:

The past performance evaluation considers three aspects (recency, relevancy, and quality). The evaluation results in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror. This is the only formal “rating” applied to this factor.

a. Recency: The first aspect considered is the recency of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will evaluate whether each of the the offeror’s submitted projects is “recently completed,” as that term is defined above.

More recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence assessment. Further, whether a project is “recent” will be considered in determining the project’s relevance.

b. Relevance: The second aspect considered is the relevance of an offeror’s past performance. This evaluation involves the determination as to how relevant each submitted is to the solicitation’s effort, as the term “relevant” is defined above. Projects that are more “relevant” will likely be considered a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on Performance Confidence assessment, compared to past performance submitted for projects of lesser relevance.

In arriving at the single Performance Confidence rating, the Government will consider how relevant each submitted project is to the efforts required in the solicitation. While the relevance consideration is a significant contributor to the Performance Confidence rating, it is not a formal rating in and of itself. The following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevance of an offeror’s past performance.

Past Performance Relevance Matrix

Level of Relevance 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 considered is the quality of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will review the past performance information for those projects submitted by the offeror, in addition to any other projects considered by the Government, and make an overall determination as to how well the offeror performed.

The Government will consider the context of the past performance information. The Government will also consider any general trends in the offeror’s performance. The Government reserves the right to consider any past performance information collected (including information for projects not submitted by the offeror, or which do not meet the solicitation’s definition of “relevant”) as part of determining the quality of the offeror’s performance history.

The Government will consider the credibility of the source of past performance information and may place a higher value on past performance information obtained from Government sources (for example, CPARS, other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror). The Government is not limited in its past performance analysis to those projects submitted by the offeror.

Performance Confidence Assessment: After the Government assesses recency, relevance, and quality of the projects, it will assign a Performance Confidence rating. This rating will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the work required in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance, and quality of performance. In arriving at a single Performance Confidence assessment, the Government will place the subjective weight on these three elements that it deems appropriate as part of evaluating each offeror’s proposal.

The Government will use the following criteria in assigning the Performance Confidence rating:

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Government’s analysis of the offeror’s past performance, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Government’s analysis of the offeror’s past performance, 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…