Amendment 04 to Solicitation W912ER22R0024_RLB Multiple Award IDIQ.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

This amendment is to extend the proposal due date to 29 June 2022 by 4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Jun-2022

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 W912ER22R0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Mar-2022

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 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

17-Jun-2022

CODE

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

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:

W912ER22R0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-Jun-2022 04:00 PM to 29-Jun-2022 04:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

ADDENDUM

1.0. BASIS OF AWARD

1.1 Proposals received in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with the DoD source selection procedures, as outlined in FAR part 15 and the Army Source Selection Supplement (November 2017), and will follow the evaluation procedures described below.

1.2 The Government will consider the following factors:

Factor 1: Compliance with DFARS 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements Factor 2: Demonstration of UFC Compliance

1.3 Factors 1 and 2 are “Go/No-Go” factors and, thus, will receive a rating of either “Go” or “No-Go”. Offerors will be assigned a “Go” rating for each of these factors only if they meet all minimum requirements in the solicitation for that factor. Any offeror that receives a “No-Go” rating for either Factor 1 or 2 (under the evaluation procedures listed in the following paragraphs) will be considered ineligible for award.

Factor 3: Delivery, Logistics, and Offeror’s Capability Plan Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Price

1.4 Adjectival ratings will be assigned to Factors 3 and 4. For Factor 3, non-pricing features of each proposal will be evaluated against the RFP requirements, assessing the strengths and significant strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, as well as associated risks, and deficiencies of each proposal in light of the non-pricing evaluation criteria that are also described herein. For Factor 4, non-pricing features of each proposal will be evaluated against the RFP requirements, assessing the quality of the offeror’s past performance, making note of any deficiencies and uncertainties. Non-pricing features of Factors 3 and 4 shall be evaluated in such a manner as to assess the value of those features as compared to the proposed prices or costs to the Government. The Best Value Tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost or price evaluation factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal.

Pricing will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

1.5 The ratings for Factors 3 and 4 and the pricing report for the Price Factor (Factor 5) will be used in selecting the awardees using the Best Value Tradeoff process. As stated above, any offeror who receives a “No-Go” rating for either Factor 1 or 2 will be considered ineligible for award.

1.6 Subject to the provisions herein, award will be made to a target of five offerors that are deemed responsible according to the FAR, whose offer(s) conform to the RFP, whose proposal(s), judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria, receive “Go” ratings for Factors 1 and 2, and whose combination of technical capabilities (as demonstrated by the ratings of Factors 3 and 4) and prices represent the best value to the Government in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. However, the Government reserves the right to award to more or fewer offerors.

1.7 In evaluating proposals and in making the contract award, the Government is as concerned with obtaining the best non-pricing features as it is in doing so at a competitively reasonable price. The Government will not make a contract award to an offeror whose superior non-pricing features would cause the total cost of the procurement to become unreasonably high, nor is the Government willing to make a contract award to an offeror submitting the lowest set of prices if the non-pricing features of its proposal indicate a reasonable likelihood that successful contract execution will not occur. For this evaluation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

1.8 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions, although the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government's best interests. Therefore, an offeror that desires consideration for the contract award is advised to comply with all mandatory requirements of this solicitation for submission of price and non-price factors and to include its best terms in its proposal.

2.0. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

2.1 FACTOR 1: COMPLIANCE WITH DFARS 252.225-7021, TRADE AGREEMENTS:

2.1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

For this factor, offerors must demonstrate how they intend to comply with the requirements in DFARS 252.225- 7021, Trade Agreements. Offerors must provide the locations where they intend to manufacture the RLB units under this contract. Each offeror must also provide an affirmative statement indicating it will comply with all aspects of DFARS 252.225-7021 with regard to sourcing of materials in order to provide products of the United States or designated and/or qualifying countries. In determining and demonstrating their compliance, offerors should take into account that there are several different categories of designated and/or qualifying countries under DFARS 252.225- 7021, and that different origin determination rules apply to end products of different categories of countries.

2.1.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Government will review the information provided by the offeror against the requirements of DFARS 252.225- 7021 to determine whether the RLBs manufactured with the components presented and as described in the offeror’s plan will meet the requirements of that clause. The Government will review the intended place of manufacture to determine whether it is in the United States or a designated and/or qualifying country. Offerors whose places of manufacture meet the requirements of DFARS 252.225-7021 will be given “Go” ratings. Offerors whose places of manufacture do not meet the requirements of DFARS 252.225-7021 will be given “No-Go” ratings and will not be eligible for award. Failure to provide the affirmative statement of compliance will also result in a “No-Go” rating.

2.1.3 FACTOR 1: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

Offerors must submit proof of their ability to conform to the Trade Agreements requirements to receive “Go” ratings. Offerors that receive “No-Go” ratings will be eliminated from consideration for award.

Compliance with Trade Agreements Ratings

Rating Definition

Go Offeror provided proof that its manufacturing plan is in conformance with the Trade Agreements requirements in the solicitation.

No-Go Offeror did not provide proof that its manufacturing plan is in conformance with the Trade Agreements requirements in the solicitation.

2.2 FACTOR 2: DEMONSTRATION OF UFC COMPLIANCE:

2.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

2.2.1.1 For this factor, offerors shall submit technical drawings and narratives to demonstrate that they can develop a shippable RLB unit that can be assembled into usable facilities that meet all technical requirements for a “semi-permanent” construction level in UFC 1-201-01, as well as the DoD’s definition of a relocatable building (DoDI 4165.56). These drawings may be of an existing RLB unit previously manufactured by the offeror which is similar in size and nature to the RLB units required by this solicitation (see Section 2 of the attached PWS and attached “Relocatable Building Unit” specification), or the offeror may submit technical drawings and narratives that it has developed for an RLB unit that meets the requirements for one of the types of RLB containers required under the scope of work of this contract (even if it has not been previously manufactured). The offeror’s proposal package shall include all elements required under the noted UFC.

2.2.1.2 For the purposes of this evaluation, an RLB product which is “similar in size and nature” to the RLB units required by this solicitation means a pre-fabricated structure that is developed and newly manufactured to be readily moved (transportable over public roads) and is capable of being erected, disassembled, stored, and re-used, not including tension fabric structures assembled from modular components, air supported domes, mobile military equipment, tents, modular sheds, or temporary contractor/construction trailers. This product must be capable of being shipped in standard-sized shipping containers (8’ x 8’ x 20’) and assembled in such a way to allow for the creation of a structure suitable for human use and occupation. Submittal of RLB products which are made of combustible materials, or for products which the U.S. Government holds the patent, will also not be acceptable for this factor.

2.2.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

2.2.2.1 Proposals will be evaluated to determine if the product technical drawings and narratives for the RLB product submitted for review adhere to the minimum standards of UFC 1-201-01 for Relocatable Buildings. The information provided will be compared against the requirements listed in UFC 1-201-01. Offerors that do not provide all submittals required by UFC 1-201-01 and this factor will be assigned a “No-Go” rating. The proposal will be evaluated using the following checklist:

2.2.2.2 SEMI-PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION LEVEL CHECKLIST

STRUCTURAL

Drawings YES NO Comment

General Notes Inspection Requirements Foundation Plans Framing Plans, all levels Roof Framing Plans Details Schedules as required (footings, columns, beams, shear walls)

Calculations Basis of Design; summary of applicable codes, live loading, snow loading, wind and seismic loads, dead load assumptions.

Gravity design; design of floor and roof framing members – i.e. beams, slabs, joists, decks, and composite slabs.

Column and bearing wall design

Foundation design Lateral design; i.e. design of diaphragms and collectors, distribution of loads to lateral forces resisting elements (frames, walls), design of shear walls, moment frames, and braced frames, design of foundations at lateral force resisting elements, and design of hold downs, and straps.

Design for Anti-Terrorism (AT)/Force Protection (FP); confirm setbacks, wall construction types, and progressive collapse mitigation design requirements, check window designs, jambs and sills for AT/FP window loading requirements

Load combinations used Materials used with properties and section properties.

Connection design and details – bolted and welded

Wind load analysis applied to structure Seismic load analysis Serviceability check (deflections and overturning)

Wall panel design (building envelope) and connection to superstructure

Stated structure life-span Erection plan(s)

ELECTRICAL

Drawings YES NO Comment

Comply with the requirements of UFC 3-501-01, Electrical Engineering, Section 3-3, “Drawing Requirements”, and the following subsections:

Section 3-3.1, “Legends and Abbreviations.

Section 3-3.2.2, “Transformer Details.

Section 3-3.2.3, “Underground

Distribution”.

Section 3-3.4, “Lighting Plans and Details”.

Section 3-3.5, “Power Plans”.

Section 3-3.12, “Telecommunications

Riser Diagram”.

Section 3-3.13, “Intercommunication/Paging Riser Diagram”.

Section 3-3.14, “Fire Alarm Riser Diagram”.

Section 3-3.16, “Schedules and Elevations”.

Calculations YES NO Comment Comply with the requirements of UFC 3-

501-01, Electrical Engineering, for the following calculations:

Section 3-2.4, “Short Circuit Analysis” Section 3-2.6, “Arc Flash Analyses” Section 3-2.15, “Lightning Protection

Calculations”

PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL

Drawings YES NO Comment

Natural ventilation - Floor plans showing the layout of the ventilation system, dimensions of openings and associated equipment, and the means of controlling the system.

Mechanical ventilation - Floor plans showing the layout of the ventilation system, equipment schedules and details, schematic diagrams, and control sequences and diagrams.

Specific Systems, provide Mechanical System documentation in accordance with UFC-3-410-01, Chapter 5-2, “Drawings”.

with UFC-3-420-01, Chapter 5-2, “Drawings”.

Calculations based on facility function and climatic conditions of the countries designated in the PWS in accordance with the requirements of the product specifications in the solicitation.

Natural ventilation – Calculations showing ventilation opening areas.

Mechanical ventilation – Calculations showing required ventilation air quantities based on facility occupancy.

with UFC-3-410-01, Chapter 3-5, “Calculations”

Specific Systems, provide Plumbing System documentation per UFC 3-420- 01, Chapter 5-1.3, “Calculations”

FIRE PROTECTION

Drawing / Narrative Basis of Design (can be combined) YES NO Comment

A fire protection summary is required for all designs. Provide a summary discussing the following minimum fire protection provisions, based on UFC 1- 200-01, UFC 1-201-01, and UFC 3-600- 01.

Building code analysis summary drawing (i.e., type of construction, height and area limitations, and building separation or exposure protection).

Classification of occupancy, mixed use requirements, any hazardous areas.

Requirements for fire and smoke barriers, fire rated walls.

Life safety plan showing locations of fire rated walls, egress paths, a n d travel distances.

Fire protection plan (include type of system and location of equipment), and water supply information (if system is required).

Fire alarm/mass notification system plan showing type of system and location of equipment, indicating reporting method to a central station/base location (if system is required).

Interior finish ratings required and provided.

Coordination with security and antiterrorism requirements.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

YES NO Comment Follow UFC 3-580-01, Telecommunications Interior Infrastructure Planning and Design, Section 2-9, “Grounding, Bonding and Static Protection”.

Follow UFC 3-580-01, Appendix A:

TIA-J-STD-607-B, Generic Telecommunications Bonding and Grounding (Earthing) for Customer Premises.

MIL-STD-188-124B, Grounding, Bonding And Shielding for Common Long Haul/Tactical Communication Systems Including Ground Based Communications-Electronics Facilities and Equipment.

MIL-HDBK-419A, Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding For Electronic Equipment and Facilities.

CYBERSECURITY

YES NO Comment All control systems (including systems separate from an energy management control system) planned, designed, acquired, executed, and maintained in accordance with UFC 4-010-06, and as required by the solicitation.

Please note that some of the external references in UFC 1-201-01 have been recently replaced or superseded. The chart above lists the correct, up to date references.

2.2.2.3 It is the responsibility of the offeror to demonstrate compliance with all requirements listed and described within UFC 1-201-01 as described in the previous paragraphs. The Government will not be required to make assumptions or inferences, and offerors will be evaluated only on the product information provided and made available for review. Simple statements that a particular element of the product meets UFC requirements without supporting evidence are not sufficient to demonstrate UFC compliance.

2.2.2.4 In addition, having proprietary components or systems will not be an acceptable reason for not providing the information required by the UFC for review as Government employees are prohibited by law (including under 18 USC § 1905) from disclosing the information presented to them for review and evaluation.

2.2.3 FACTOR 2: ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

The offeror must submit proof of its ability to develop a UFC compliant RLB product to receive a “Go” rating. An offeror that receives a “No-Go” rating will be eliminated from consideration for award.

Demonstration of UFC Compliance Ratings

Rating Definition

Go Offeror provided proof of its ability to develop or having previously developed a UFC Compliant RLB product.

No-Go

Offeror did not provide proof of its ability to develop or having previously developed a UFC Compliant RLB product.

2.3 FACTOR 3: DELIVERY, LOGISTICS, AND OFFEROR’S CAPABILITY PLAN:

There are two elements associated with this Factor: (1) Delivery & Logistics, and (2) Production Capability.

2.3.1 Element 1: Delivery & Logistics:

2.3.1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.3.1.1.1 To address the requirements of this element, an offeror shall submit a delivery and logistics narrative that addresses how the offeror will provide delivery and assembly services to the locations required within the

CENTCOM AOR.

2.3.1.1.2 An offeror shall describe its plan to accomplish delivery to each of the countries listed in the PWS (Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt, and Iraq).

2.3.1.1.3 The narrative should describe the major activities associated with delivery, and provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the offeror has an adequate understanding of the delivery requirements of this solicitation. The offeror should also include any information regarding its experience with shipping and delivery to any of the required locations. The narrative should also address the offeror’s experience and/or knowledge regarding obtaining access to military facilities to accomplish on-site delivery and assembly. The narrative should take into account current supply chain conditions and state how the offeror is able to leverage their capabilities to mitigate supply chain issues to the greatest degree possible.

2.3.1.1.4 The offeror’s narrative should describe in general terms how it would execute assembly operations and incidental construction, should an individual delivery order require those particular services.

2.3.1.1.5 Offerors should identify any delivery locations in the required delivery area where their capabilities allow them to provide services that could be considered value-added to the Government, and should describe the nature of that value. General note for this element: offerors shall not reference information from their price proposal in their response to this factor.

2.3.1.1.6 To demonstrate its knowledge of logistics in the AOR, the offeror shall include an “example” delivery project. In this example, the offeror shall describe how it would accomplish a delivery order of 30 RLB units from its manufacturing facility to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. This example should include the following information:

Where the RLB units would be manufactured, and timeframes for sourcing RLB components and manufacturing them.

Methods of transportation from the factory to Kuwait, to include shipping methods.

Location of delivery to Kuwait, how shipments will be processed through customs and how local delivery will be arranged.

Details on how local delivery will occur, including gaining access to the noted installation.

Delivery within the camp, and information on how assembly activities will occur, including identifying potential sources of labor, gaining access to the installation, and performing the assembly.

Any other activities that the offeror believes will convey its understanding of manufacture, delivery, or logistics in the AOR.

Approximate timeframes should be included for all the tasks included.

2.3.1.1.7 The Element 1 narrative shall not exceed ten pages in length. A page is defined as a single PDF page that can be printed on an 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper. Any information presented beyond this page limit will not be evaluated.

2.3.1.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

2.3.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate each offeror’s delivery and logistics narrative for thoroughness and demonstration of understanding. Offerors that demonstrate a full understanding of the delivery and assembly requirements of the RFP, and provide a workable, realistic plan for execution (e.g., a plan containing specific information which includes information that is based on the offeror or its project team’s previous work performing tasks that are similar to those required by this solicitation) will be assigned higher adjectival ratings than those that do not.

2.3.1.2.2 Greater weight will be given to offerors that demonstrate capability in delivering similar materials to military facilities in the CENTCOM AOR, and that they have learned lessons and enhanced their capabilities through that experience. Offerors that demonstrate that they have expertise assembling RLB components within the CENTCOM AOR will be given greater weight, with even greater weight given to those offerors who demonstrate capability with RLB assembly on U.S. Military Installations in the region. Statements of expertise and capability will be of little value, however, if not tied to detailed knowledge and plans derived from previous real-world examples.

2.3.1.2.3 The offeror’s plan for shipping logistics, assembly operations, and potential incidental construction will be evaluated for evidence that the offeror fully understands the requirements of the solicitation. Understanding the requirements for this purpose includes understanding the challenges likely to be encountered at each step and mitigation measures to address those challenges. Offerors will be given lower ratings for unrealistically positive or excessively negative expectations, omissions of important matters, and statements that demonstrate a lack of familiarity with operating conditions in the delivery countries.

2.3.1.2.4 Offerors will be given greater weight if they can convincingly demonstrate that their delivery and logistics plans will result in reduced production, delivery, or assembly times for RLBs delivered to and assembled in the areas covered by this contract.

2.3.1.2.5 The Government will review the proposed “example” projects for completeness relative to the requested items. Greater weight will be assigned to example scenarios that have realistic timeframes and which contain details that appear well researched or indicative of expertise and capability executing similar efforts in the AOR. Note that offerors will not be rated unfavorably if they propose longer durations than would normally be expected due to current global supply chain conditions, however offerors that can convincingly demonstrate expertise and knowledge in managing supply chain logistics (within the context of both the narrative and the example project) and can offer credible mitigation strategies to supply chain constraints will be assigned greater weight than offerors that cannot.

2.3.2 Element 2: Production Capability:

2.3.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.3.2.1.1 This element seeks to identify the capabilities of the individual offerors to meet all aspects of this very diverse and potentially high volume IDIQ contract. The intent of this element is for offerors to describe their production capabilities and any limitations offerors may have regarding sizes of delivery orders, as well as ensure to the greatest degree possible that the offerors will utilize a safe and efficient manufacturing facility, which complies with the contract clauses related to workforce management.

2.3.2.1.2 An offeror shall describe its (or its designated subcontractor’s or supplier’s) primary location(s) for production of RLB units and include details regarding that facility’s existing capabilities producing products similar in nature to those required by the scope in the solicitation. The offeror should describe what current production capabilities would need to be modified to accommodate the RLB units required by the solicitation, if any, and its plan for implementing those modifications.

2.3.2.1.3 An offeror shall describe in detail its proposed manufacturing processes, and provide information regarding how the facility is organized and the general conditions of the workspaces. Offerors should discuss the following about their manufacturing facilities:

Their general approach to organization, cleanliness, and efficiency.

How individual workstations are organized.

Details on any manufacturing waste control measures that have been implemented.

A discussion on inventory management, including how inventory is labeled and identified, and how it is stocked and arranged at individual stations.

A discussion on how maintenance is planned and performed on manufacturing machinery and equipment, noting if maintenance schedules are posted and visible to workers.

A general discussion on quality control, quality management systems in place, related certifications held by the manufacturer, and any other policies or procedures for, or that indicate that the manufacturer will be successful in, guaranteeing that RLB products consistently meet applicable specifications and a high standard of workmanship.

A general discussion on workplace safety, including a concise list of policies and procedures currently in place, including information on facility fire protection measures.

2.3.2.1.4 The offeror may submit drawings, videos, photos, and/or schematics of its existing facilities and/or production lines to verify the information provided in this section regarding manufacturing capability. Videos submitted shall be no more than 20 minutes in length.

2.3.2.1.5 The offeror shall provide information on production lead times (i.e. how much time is needed from the time of delivery order award before initial production can begin), production rates (i.e. how many of each of the proposed RLB unit type can typically be produced over a period of time), and any other relevant information which would give the Government confidence that the offeror can successfully execute the solicitation requirements.

Offerors may also include information regarding steps they would take to potentially increase or improve capability/capacity should they be awarded this contract. As part of this discussion, offerors shall note if and how they are able to accomplish the following production rate goals for each RLB unit type as described below, and should note its planned average production rate for each unit, particularly if it exceeds the following rate goals (note that these production rates assume that adequate material quantities have already been procured and delivered to the manufacturing facility):

• Type A: 1.5 RLB units per day

• Types B & C: 1 RLB unit per week

• Types D & F: 1 RLB unit per day

2.3.2.1.6 If the offeror intends to use a subcontractor or supplier to manufacture RLB units or components, and references that subcontractor’s or supplier’s capabilities as part of this factor, then the offeror must submit a letter of commitment (LOC) for the subcontractor or supplier for its experience or capabilities to be considered for evaluation.

2.3.2.1.7 The Element 2 narrative shall not exceed ten pages in length. A page is defined as a single PDF page that is 8.5” x 11” in size. Any information presented beyond this page limit will not be evaluated. This page limit is exclusive of any photographs, diagrams, schematics, certificates, letters of commitment, or any other supplementary material that could be used by the Government to verify the statements provided by the offeror in this element.

2.3.2.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

2.3.2.2.1 Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to provide the information requested for this element in sufficient detail to convince the Government that they will be utilizing a safe, efficient, productive, and effective manufacturing facility, and on the degree of support and verification (photos, video, certifications, etc.) of the statements made in response to the requirements of this element.

2.3.2.2.2 Greater weight will be given to offerors that propose using manufacturing facilities with expertise and demonstated capability in manufacturing products similar to those required by the solicitation (see definition of “similar products” in Factor 2). Offerors may be rated less favorably if they do not appear to have adequate existing capability to execute delivery orders effectively or if they require extensive modifications to their existing capabilities to meet the Government’s need, particularly if they do not present a convincing plan to increase those capabilities. Weight given to an offeror’s stated capability will be determined by the extent to which an offeror explains how lessons learned from that previous work performed has equipped it to meet the highest manufacturing standards for RLBs prospectively.

2.3.2.2.3 Greater weight will be given to those offerors that can demonstrate that their manufacturing facilities are neat, efficient, well organized, and safe. In determining this, the Government will consider the general cleanliness of the facility and whether the facility appears to have sufficient lighting to produce quality work (as demonstrated in photos, videos, etc.), as well as whether workstations have product specifications prominently posted, if inventory is clearly labeled and identified, and if sufficient inventory for more than a shift’s worth of work is readily available in the vicinity of workstations. The Government will consider if the equipment appears to be clean and well maintained, and if jigs, fixtures, or other mistake-proofing measures are in place. The Government will review the information provided on workplace safety to determine if safety appears to be a priority for the offeror, taking into account whether fire protection elements are demonstrated to be present (and appear functional and adequate for the proposed facility).

2.3.2.2.4 Significantly greater weight will be given to offerors that present quality management capabilities that are thorough and based on proven standards and methodologies. Greater weight will be given to those offerors that can demonstrate some type of internationally recognized quality management certification (e.g. of compliance with ISO 9001, etc.). Greater weight will also be given for demonstrations of consistent success in quality inspections carried out by independent inspectors or auditors.

2.3.2.2.5 To be given an “Acceptable” or above rating for this factor, an offeror must convincingly explain how it will be able to accomplish the production rates goals for RLB units stated in 2.3.2.1.5.

2.3.2.2.6 Additional preference will be given to offerors who can exceed the stated production rates, in accordance with the degree to which each offeror convincingly demonstrates it can realistically exceed them while not compromising the quality of the units produced.

2.3.2.3 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS FOR FACTOR 3: DELIVERY, LOGISTICS, AND

OFFEROR’S CAPABILITY PLAN

The Technical Factor Ratings shown below focus on the strengths, weaknesses, risks, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements.

2.4 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation includes an assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and results in a single performance confidence assessment rating based on an offeror’s past performance record.

2.4.1 FOR THIS EVALUATION:

2.4.1.1 A “recent” project is defined as a relocatable building project which has been completed within the five (5) years immediately preceding the RFP issuance date, or for an ongoing contract, for which at least 80% of the RLB products have been delivered.

2.4.1.2 A “relevant” project is defined as a project involving the manufacturing and delivery of RLB units (as defined in DoDI 4165.56) which are intended for human occupation and use, with a higher degree of relevancy assigned to those projects which included the assembly of those RLB units into usable facilities, and those which involve delivery and/or assembly within the CENTCOM AOR, with the highest degree of relevancy assigned to a project involving delivery and assembly of RLB units on a U.S. military installation in the CENTCOM AOR. The cost magnitudes of the projects submitted will also be used to determine relevancy, with projects equal to or over $10M in magnitude being considered to be fully relevant to the subject solicitation. Projects under $10M in magnitude will still be considered but will be assigned a lower degree of relevancy than those equal to or over $10M. In addition, a project must be “recent” to be considered relevant. Projects performed by the offeror itself as a prime contractor may be considered more “relevant” for the past performance evaluation than projects performed by the offeror as a subcontractor or by a committed subcontractor.

2.4.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.4.2.1 Offerors should submit no more than five projects for consideration that are recent and relevant to this solicitation. Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

2.4.2.2 An offeror may submit for evaluation projects that it (or its committed subcontractor as permitted below) performed as a prime contractor, as part of a joint venture (JV), or as a subcontractor so long as the offeror’s role in the project involves the manufacture, delivery, and assembly of RLB components into one or more usable

COLOR RATING DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

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.

structure(s) fit for human occupation.

2.4.2.3 If an offeror is a partnership or JV, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by the partnership or JV, and projects performed by entities that comprise the partnership or JV. The Government will consider a submitted project performed by a partner or coventurer, if: (a) for that project, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the partner or coventurer; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the partner or coventurer on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner or coventurer will be performing on the solicitation project.

2.4.2.4 An offeror as prime contractor may submit past performance information for a subcontractor, if that subcontractor will be responsible for manufacturing a majority (>50%) of the RLB units for the solicitation. In these cases, the prime contractor should also submit past performance information for projects that it has performed in a role similar to the one that it proposes for itself for the solicitation (e.g. overall logistical management of RLB manufacturing and delivery utilizing specialized subcontractors). If the prime contractor is responsible for manufacturing a majority of the RLB units, then it should submit past performance for projects similar to that role, and may submit a subcontractor’s information on past performance for majority roles similar to overall logistical management and delivery of RLB units, as described in this solicitation. The upper limit of five projects for consideration still applies regardless of the number of different firms for which the prime contractor offeror chooses to include past performance information. In any case, if a prime contractor submits past performance information for a subcontractor, an unequivocal LOC for that subcontractor must be included in the proposal.

2.4.2.5 An offeror shall provide a separate Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 1), Project Summary Form (Attachment 2), and either a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) for each project submitted.

2.4.2.6 The offeror should include a project description on the Project Summary Form that includes the project scope and cost magnitude, and which is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevance, recency, and quality. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted in the appropriate space provided.

2.4.2.7 Also on the Project Summary Form, the offeror should provide the name and contact information of English-speaking references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance, and who are independent, willing, and available to answer questions. References should be knowledgeable personnel within the contracting agency or entity that administers the contract such as the agent, owner, or Government representative.

References may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner, contractor, and designer, as-built documentation, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manuals, training, correcting errors, and warranty work. The offeror should notify the reference that he/she may be contacted for the evaluation.

2.4.2.8 An offeror should obtain a client-completed PPQ for each project submitted if a Government-completed CPAR is not available. If the offeror is unable to obtain a client-completed PPQ 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). If the client requests, completed PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Peter Smith (Peter.S.Smith@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.

2.4.2.9 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.

2.4.2.10 FALSIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (INCLUDING PPQs) 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.

2.4.2.11 While the Government is under no obligation to obtain past performance information not included in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal, the Government reserves the right to contact and interview references and clients submitted by an offeror, and to use any other means available to verify past performance information. The Government reserves the right to obtain and use in its evaluation any past performance information, including information for projects not submitted by the offeror. The Government may obtain 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 Report System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (as a sole contractor, prime contractor, partner, coventurer, JV, 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); interviews with Government personnel; and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

2.4.3 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

2.4.3.1 The past performance evaluation considers three aspects (recency, relevance, 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.

2.4.3.2 Recency: The first aspect considered is the recency of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will consider whether each of the offeror’s submitted projects is “recently completed,” as “recent” 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.

2.4.3.3 Relevance: The second aspect considered is the relevance of an offeror’s past performance. This evaluation involves a determination as to how relevant each submitted project is to the solicitation’s effort, as the term “relevant” is defined above. Projects that are more “relevant” will typically 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.

2.4.3.4 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 for each project 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 each individual offeror’s projects submitted for consideration of past performance.

Past Performance Relevance Matrix Level of Relevance 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.

2.4.3.5 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 has performed on past projects. The Government will consider the context of the past performance information, and any general trends in the offeror’s performance.

2.4.3.6 The Government may seek and obtain past performance information about an offeror from Government and non-Government sources and databases. In addition, the Government may consider negative past performance discovered on projects which do not strictly meet the definition of recent and relevant; for example the Government may consider negative performance information gathered on ongoing contracts that have not yet reached completion, or for negative performance information gathered on contracts with a somewhat dissimilar scope or smaller magnitude than the solicitation requirements. The Government may use any evidence of negative past performance it uncovers in this manner to assign a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” rating for this factor if it determines there is a reasonable expectation that this evidence of negative performance is indicative of potential negative performance on the solicitation projects.

2.4.3.7 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 or other agency performance databases) than on past performance information from other sources.

2.4.3.8 Performance Confidence Assessment. After the Government assesses recency, relevance, and quality, 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 record of quality of recent and relevant past performance. In arriving at a single Performance Confidence assessment, the Government will make an overall assessment of each offeror’s past performance record, considering information as described above, weighing performance quality against recency and relevance to determine its level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform requirements under the contract resulting from the solicitation successfully. This single rating is based upon the totality of the offeror’s submissions, taking into account that different capabilities may be demonstrated by different projects submitted or otherwise considered by the Government.

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

Past Performance Confidence Assessment 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 relevant/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.

2.4.3.10 In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror for which there is no information on relevant past performance or where past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor.