W912ER22R0008 Amendment 0002 - Proposal Due Date Extension.pdf

474977

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Refer to the SF-30 Block 14 Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Nov-2021

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 W912ER22R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Oct-2021

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

18-Nov-2021

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:

W912ER22R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 02

The purpose of this amendment is to accomplish the following:

1. Revise solicitation section 2.4.3 per below changed text is highlighted and deleted text is shown using strikethrough and highlighted in the solicitation document.

2.4.3 A “recent” project is defined as a construction for electrical systems/distribution project which (1) has been completed within the last five (5) seven (7) years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction. Ongoing projects that are at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date may be considered “more recent” for the purpose of considering the project’s relevance.

2. The following note has been added to Factor 2 - PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE is revised to include the following:

Note: The narrative for this factor shall not exceed twenty (20) pages (single sided) in length. The twenty-page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment from Key Management/Staff, and Organizational Charts. Except for the stated exclusions, any pages beyond the twenty-page limitation will not be evaluated.

3. Reference to CSP in Factor 2: Preliminary Schedule has been removed in its entirety.

4. Revised proposal date: The date specified for receipt of offer is extended from 10:00AM, Eastern Standard Time (EST), 22 November 2021 to 10:00AM, EST, 5 January 2022.

5. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITION REMAINS UNCHANGED.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 22-Nov-2021 10:00 AM to 05-Jan-2022 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

ITEM DESCRIPTION

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.14 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED& EVALUATION APPROACH

2.0 FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.3 FACTOR 2: PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

2.4 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

2.6 FACTOR 4: PRICE

3.0 VOLUME II PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government and has been determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1. The Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) process (see FAR 15.101-1) will be used to determine which proposal provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, in response to the requirements. A tradeoff analysis may be appropriate when it is in the Government's best interest to consider award to other than the lowest price offeror, or other than the highest technically rated offeror. The tradeoff process involves an evaluation of both price and non-price (technical) factors, and awards the contract to the offeror proposing the combination of factors which offer the best value to the Government. The evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

1.2 In determining the best value to the Government, each non-price factor is of equal weight to each other and when combined, are significantly more important than the price factor.

1.3 In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror.

1.14. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED & EVALUATION APPROACH

1.14.1 References to “confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all 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 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.

1.14.2 Use of the words “will”, “shall”, or “must” indicates a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement at the time and date for submission of proposals may result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified from consideration for award, unless the Government determines 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 requirements annotated with the words “should” or “may” could result in a lowering of an offeror’s non-pricing ratings, and may have a significant effect upon an offeror being selected for the contract award. Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

1.14.3 In accordance with FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered when evaluating the proposals.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

1.14.4 NON-PRICE FACTORS

1.14.5 The technical evaluation team, using reasoned judgment, shall evaluate technical proposals by identifying significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies (as defined below), contained in each non-price factor.

1.14.6 Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably enhances the merit of that offeror’s proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance by that offeror.

1.14.7 Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

1.14.8 Weakness. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

1.14.9 Significant Weakness. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that, when judged against the evaluation criteria, appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.14.10 Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-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).

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

FAR 15.001.

1.14.12 Risk. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood or unsuccessful contract performance.

1.0 FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.1 Proposal Submission Requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall address the following:

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

2.2 The Management and Technical Approach includes three elements but will be evaluated as one factor and given one rating. The three elements are 1) Experience in Electrical systems/distribution, 2) Licensing, and 3) Organization.

a. Factor 1: Proposal Submission Requirements: The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that identifies the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope for the project and its approach to completing the work. The narrative should identify all the major scope components of the project. Additionally, offerors should provide a discussion of its planned technical approach to completing the project that demonstrates not only an understanding of the security requirements, base access, and other anticipated challenges, but that also provides benefit to the Government.

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

The narrative must also specifically address the following elements:

1) Experience in construction of electrical systems/electrical distribution systems. The offeror should describe in as specific terms as possible its experience in construction of Electrical systems/electrical distribution, challenges faced, and how it overcame those challenges.

Offerors must identify the project name, federal contract number, contract value, construction completion date, and place of performance for any project it references in response to this element.

2) Licensing: The offeror should provide evidence of current licensure in Bahrain, or describe in detail the process to gain licensure in Bahrain along with a detailed description of your plan to obtain necessary licensure to ensure construction start in accordance with your submitted schedule. The license must be 1) in the prime offeror’s name as listed in the System for Award Management (SAM); 2) in the name of a Joint Venture (JV) or any JV partner, if the offeror is a JV; or 3) in the name of a main subcontractor if the main subcontractor is separately identified under the “Organization” element listed below and its role in performance of the contract is clearly detailed.

If the offeror submits a license (or its plan to obtain a license) in the name of an entity that is not the offeror (e.g., a single JV partner, or the main subcontractor), the offeror should clearly describe its plan to complete the work relying upon this license. The offeror’s plan should address any anticipated impediments it may foresee in completing the work under a license not in the name of the offeror.

3) Organization: The offeror should describe the management process that the offeror would use to manage this project. The offeror should: provide a narrative on the project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to the staff in each position;

discuss how work flows through the organization; identify all of the major components of the team for the project, and explain how their work will be integrated into the overall scope; And provide an organizational chart showing the relationship between the offeror, sub-contractors, QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE.

Letters of Intent: The Government recognizes that an offeror often utilizes major subcontractors to perform portions of the work. In those cases, the offeror shall submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) signed by each major subcontractor it intends to employ. A “major subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor that will perform ten (10%) percent or more of the total dollar value of the project.

Each LOI must:

i. be written on the subcontractor’s company letterhead,

ii. be addressed to the offeror,

iii. describe and agree to a specific scope of work without caveats or disclaimers,

iv. be executed by the subcontractor’s authorized representative, and,

v. if not written in English, be accompanied by an English translation.

After award, the offeror shall not change major subcontractors for which it submitted a LOI without the Contracting Officer’s written 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 and that the substitution is in the best interests of the Government.

Responses to Factor 1 of the offeror’s proposal will be limited to forty (40) pages in length, not including the project organization and staffing chart(s); any pages beyond forty will not be reviewed for evaluation purposes. “Page” is defined for the purpose of this solicitation in paragraph 3.1.5.

b. Factor 1: Evaluation Criteria:

The Management and Technical Approach submission will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses using information provided by the offeror under this factor. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s completeness of response and feasibility of the offeror’s approach. Specifically, the proposal submission will be evaluated on how well the offeror addresses the following items:

1) Experience in Electrical systems/distribution. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the unique requirements of construction of Electrical Systems/distribution. Greater weight will be given to construction of electrical systems/distribution experience with the most weight given for electrical system/distribution construction experience in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

a. Experience in Electrical systems/distribution. The offeror should describe in as specific terms as possible its experience in Electrical systems/distribution challenges faced, and how it overcame those challenges. Offerors must identify the project name, federal contract number, contract value, construction completion date, and place of performance for any project it references in response to this element.

2) Licensing: The Government will consider the extent to which the offeror has proven (1) it holds a license in good standing for performance in Bahrain, which will permit the offeror to perform the work required within the period of performance; or (2) it understands the business license process and has clearly explained how it plans to obtain the Bahrain business license necessary to perform the work required within the period of performance. Greater weight will be given to offerors who holds a license in good standing which will permit the offeror to perform the work required within the period of performance.

3) Organization: The Government will evaluate the extent to which an offeror’s plan for organization includes well defined organization and lines of authority, responsibility, communication, and tracking of schedules. The Government will consider whether the offeror clearly describes its organizational structure for this particular project, including lines of authority and the relationship between its home office site office (office which is directly responsible for execution of this project) and USACE TAM.

The organization chart should include titles and explanations of the major responsibilities and authorities for key personnel in the home office, support office and site offices. The proposal should clearly explain the proposed project staffing and how the work effort can be effectively managed. The chart should clearly identify where positions/ personnel are located and whether filled by the Prime Contractor or their subcontractor’s personnel. The roles of any Joint Venture partners and/or subcontractors must be clearly stated in this section. If a Joint Venture, the offeror should address the respective roles of the Joint Venture partners. The awardee shall not change major subcontractors without approval of the Contracting Officer.

Note: Greater weight may be given to offerors whose proposals effectively demonstrate organizational structure, processes, and procedures that minimize risk to the Government.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach factor. In rating the offeror, the Government will weigh the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The chart below explains the ratings which will be applied to the Factor 1 – Management and Technical Approach portion of the offeror’s proposal, based on how well the offeror’s proposal meets this factor’s requirements.

(See ratings table on the following page.)

a. FACTOR 2 – PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

a. Factor 2: Proposal Submission Requirements: The offeror shall provide a single preliminary master schedule with approximately 100 activities or milestones - derived from the full project schedule - and an accompanying schedule narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The schedule must include the major activity milestones identified below with a total contract duration of 993 calendar days beginning at contract award. The schedule shall start no earlier than the contract award date. The schedule should be in the form of a time scaled network diagram Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule that is in accordance with specification 01 32 17.12 10 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES. This schedule should cover aspects of the project, including a timeline from date of contract award, issuance of the NTP, and through construction completion. The schedule must include the following:

Award

NTP

Obtain Bahraini Business License (if not currently licensed) Submit Cleared Construction Personnel for Approval Procurement of Long Lead Items (Secure Shipping) Mobilization Testing & Commissioning of Major Building Systems Demobilization Project Completion

The offeror should demonstrate a further understanding of the project requirements by including additional activities and milestones not listed above.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color 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 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.

The offeror shall include an accompanying schedule narrative to demonstrate the schedule’s logic, constraints, and the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements. The narrative should include, but not be limited to

(a) the offeror’s plan to procure its construction material along with key long lead procurement items, (b) the offeror’s plan to ship material in accordance with the CSP, (c) constraints on the schedule presented (such as if the offeror plans to utilize multiple crews, or more than one shift, or work an extended workweek to meet the required construction completion date, weather, material availability, etc.), and (d) the integration of any key subcontractor firms. The narrative should also include identification of the critical path, key construction milestones and features of work, concurrent activities, and key deliverables. The length of the schedule should be in compliance with the stated Period of Performance. The project schedule should contain a sufficient amount of activities and all key milestones which demonstrate an understanding of the project scope.

b. Factor 2: Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s preliminary schedule and narrative to determine the extent of the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the contract duration presented in the preliminary schedule to determine if it satisfies the requirements of the Government’s RFP. The Government will also review the schedule for construction phasing and the logic shown concerning integration and/or sequencing construction work on the different elements of the project, in determining whether the schedule shown is realistic and obtainable. Greater weight may be given to feasible schedules which provide detail beyond identifying and including the major construction milestones and project elements, such as procurement activities, interim milestones, major and secondary features of work, etc.

The Government will review the schedule and narrative for how well it identifies and addresses constraints on the performance of the work, such as labor, material availability, permits, etc. In its evaluation, the Government will consider the extent to which the schedule and narrative demonstrate compliance with all requirements with regard to proposed activities. Greater weight may be given to detailed narratives which clearly identify critical schedule related issues and potential problems and discuss meaningful mitigation strategies to avoid sources of potential delays. Greater weight may also be given to schedules and narratives which demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of all of the elements of the project scope of work.

The Government will evaluate the completeness of the schedule to assure it meets the above requirements and will analyze activity durations, and logic sequence of the activities. Resource loading of activities is not to be shown. The contract awardee shall submit a Baseline Network Analysis Schedule (NAS) in accordance with the specifications after award.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule of an offeror’s proposal. In rating the offeror, the Government will focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The chart below explains the rating which will be applied to the Factor 2 – Preliminary Schedule portion of the offeror’s proposal, based on how well the offeror’s proposal meets this factor’s requirements.

Note: The narrative for this factor shall not exceed twenty (20) pages (single sided) in length. The twenty-page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment from Key Management/Staff, and Organizational Charts.

Except for the stated exclusions, any pages beyond the twenty-page limitation will not be evaluated.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color 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.

2.4 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

2.4.1 The Factor 3 Past Performance evaluation includes an assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and results in an assignment of a single past performance confidence assessment rating based on an offeror’s overall record of Recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.4.2 For the purpose of this evaluation:

2.4.3 A “recent” project is defined as a construction for electrical systems/distribution project which (1) has been completed within the last five (5) seven(7) years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction.

Ongoing projects that are at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date may be considered “more recent” for the purpose of considering the project’s relevance.

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

2.4.5 “Similar scope” is defined as construction in electrical system/distribution and performed Outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS) that conforms to the requirements in the solicitation. Electrical systems/distribution construction projects performed in GCC countries will be considered to have a “more similar” scope than those performed in non-GCC, OCONUS countries, and accordingly, may be considered more relevant.

2.4.6 “Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $10 million. Projects with a total value of between $25M and $50M will be considered to have a “more similar” cost magnitude, and accordingly, may be considered more relevant.

2.4.7 Factor 3 Proposal Submission Requirements:

2.4.7.1 The offeror shall submit information for at least two (2) but no more than five (5) projects that have been performed by the offeror. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation. An offeror may submit projects for evaluation for which it performed as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. Past performance information related to an offeror’s proposed subcontractor’s projects will not be evaluated. If an offeror is a partnership or Joint Venture, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by (1) the partnership or Joint Venture, and (2) projects performed by entities that comprise the partnership or Joint Venture. The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one partner or coverture, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the partner or coverture for that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the partner or coverture on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner or coverture will be performing on the solicitation project.

2.4.7.2 An offeror shall submit its project experience using a separate Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 1), Project Summary Form (Attachment 2), and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3)

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of 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.

for each project submitted. The offeror should include a project description on the Project Summary Form that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and cost magnitude. 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 Project Summary Form. The offeror should also provide the name of an English-speaking reference and current contact information on the Project Summary Form.

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

2.4.7.4 An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ (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 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 Government investigations and interviews.

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

2.4.7.6 In addition to the PPQs, 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.

Note: FALSIFIED PPQs MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF AN OFFEROR’S

PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE

OFFEROR TO THE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY.

2.4.7.7 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating current and past performance. Other sources may include but are not limited to past performance information retrieved through information systems including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEIN numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangements, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquires of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the offeror’s Dun & Bradstreet Report, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact Government field representatives or any sources it deems appropriate.

2.5 Factor 3: Evaluation Criteria:

2.5.1 The Past Performance evaluation considers three aspects (recency, relevancy, and quality), and assesses the probability an offeror will meet contract requirements should that offeror be awarded a contract. The evaluation results in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror. This is the only formal "rating" applied at the Past Performance Factor level. The three aspects that make up the evaluation are discussed below.

2.5.2 Recency: The first aspect considered is the recency of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will consider whether the offeror’s submitted projects are “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.

2.5.3 Relevancy: The second aspect considered in this evaluation involves a determination as to how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror 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.

In arriving at the single Performance Confidence rating, the Government will first consider how relevant the offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. While the relevancy consideration is a significant contributor to the final Past Performance rating, 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 Ratings Rating Definition

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.

2.5.4 Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and make an overall determination as to how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

2.5.5 Confidence Assessment Rating. After the Government assesses the recency, relevancy, and quality of the projects submitted, the final step of the Past Performance evaluation requires a Performance Confidence assessment.

The Performance Confidence Rating assigned under the Past Performance factor 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, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected, including information for projects that do not meet the solicitation’s definition of “relevant,” and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends in contractor performance, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

2.5.6 The Government places a higher value on past performance for which documented successful outcomes are both available and supported by independent outside source conformation (for example, CPARS, other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror). The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to the offeror from Governmental and non-Government sources and databases.

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

2.5.8 In the case of an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offerors past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) may regard a rating of Neutral Confidence less favorably than a rating of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” where those ratings may be associated with relatively lower risk of unsuccessful performance, and where a Neutral Confidence rating may not facilitate a risk assessment.

2.5.9 The following criteria will be used to establish the Performance Confidence rating assigned to the Factor 3 - Past Performance portion of the offeror’s proposal:

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

2.5.10 Unavailability of Past Performance Information: in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. This offeror shall receive an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating.

2.6 FACTOR 4: PRICE

2.6.1

In addition to the following Factor 4 Proposal Submission Requirements for evaluation, the offeror must include all items listed under paragraph 1.12.2 Volume II – Factor 4 Price Proposal in its Volume II submission. The Government will evaluate the total proposed price to include all options.

a. Factor 4 Proposal Submission Requirements:

Price proposals shall include the following:

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

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

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

Offerors should note that the Government intends to award the contract without entering into discussions or price negotiations. Therefore, offerors should submit their best and final price for consideration.

b. Factor 4 Evaluation Procedures and Descriptions:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

1. The price proposal is complete. To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data that is requested to evaluate the price. Each cell in the Cost Breakdown Sheet requires a number to be input. Blank cells will be considered incomplete.

The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

2. The price proposal is balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. An offeror’s proposal may be unacceptable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. The price proposal is reasonable. A price will be determined "reasonable" using the techniques at FAR 15.404-1, as deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer. Such techniques may include comparison with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals).

DFARS 252.236-7010 states that “offers from firms that do not qualify as United States firms will be evaluated by adding 20 percent to the offer. For purposes of the price evaluation, if the offeror is JV, the offeror will be considered a “US firm” if at least one of the JV partners qualifies as a US firm.

Price evaluations will not result in an assigned adjectival rating. Contract line items will be analyzed to determine whether unit prices proposed for the work to be performed reflects the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as, material, labor, equipment, etc. and indirect costs, such as, job overhead, home office overhead, bonding, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price. Price proposals that are incomplete, unbalanced, or unreasonable may be considered unacceptable.

3.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

3.1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

3.1.1 Proposals are due no later than10:00 AM, Wednesday,, 5 January 2022. Proposals received after this due date and time will not be considered for evaluation.

3.1.2 Time periods, if stated as a number of days, are calendar days unless otherwise specified.

3.1.3 Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted are current, correct, and complete, including dollar values found in price proposals.

3.1.4 Proposals must be submitted electronically. Proposals must include as three separate Adobe pdf files Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III, responses to the Responsibility Determination Questionnaire (Attachment 5).

Proposals shall be submitted to Ms. Lorna Pat Beckman at lorna.p.beckman@usace.army.mil and Mr. Kenneth G.

Baker at Kenneth G. Baker@usace.army.mil through the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil/). Submissions by other means are not authorized.

3.1.5 The proposal shall be sized to print on 8-1/2" x 11" paper (or A4 size). Margins should be no smaller than a half inch (1/2”) on all sides. Font face should be Times New Roman or Arial, no smaller than 10 point font. Page is defined as a single sheet of paper with text on one side. The Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds page limits specified herein.

3.1.6 Proposals must be typed and submitted in English. Proposals submitted in a language other than English are unacceptable.

3.1.7 The offeror shall place the following notification on the bottom of each page of its proposal: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. Do not disclose any Source Selection Information to any unauthorized person.”

3.1.8 Inquiries. Inquiries regarding this solicitation shall be submitted as follows:

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

The solicitation number is: W912ER22R0008 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 22SRQB-85A4J6

1. To access the ProjNet website for the first time:

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

b. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

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

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

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

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

2. To access ProjNet for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

a. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

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

c. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

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

e. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

f. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret

Question.

g. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

Note, offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

3. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries seven (7) days prior to the proposal due date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

4. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. An offeror that submits a question will receive an acknowledgement via email, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical and contracting team.

5. The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. ProjNet questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@projnet.info.

3.1.10 Oral explanations or instructions to offerors are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.