Amendment_03.pdf

W912GB-17-R-0036

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

ADDITIONAL RFIS

Additional RFIs

Q: The subgrade improvement design: on the cross-sections B-301, B-302, B-303 signs representing density index (ID) of non-cohesive soils and liquidity index (IL) of cohesive soils have been used. However, a non-cohesive soil MSa (medium sand) has been described in the same way as a cohesive soil clsaSi (silt with clay and sand). How should it understand? Is it a mistake in description or it may be assumed that the soil "MSa" is in fact a cohesive one?

A: This is a mistake. MSa is a non-cohesive soil.

Q: What were the standards used for the subgrade improvement design? Which one imposed the requirements of modulus E2 on depth greater than surface of the improved subgrade?

A: Host Nation standards apply.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CITERIA

A. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 00)

When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to the subject solicitation. When the word ‘Government’ is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean USACE NAU.

The requirements for the preparation and submission of proposals and the requirements for the evaluation of proposals in response to this solicitation are contained in the Request for Proposals, Section 00 22 00. Contractors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value to the Government. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of four (4) factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, and Price.

Experience contains a pass/fail element. For Experience the Offerors have to submit at least three (3) projects that were performed by the prime (i.e. the Offeror). In case of a Joint Venture (JV), the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet that minimum requirement are not eligible for award. Once the proposal is rated “Pass” for this aspect, the relative weight of the evaluation factors is as follows: Experience is significantly more important than Past Performance, Past Performance is significantly more important than Management Approach, and when combined, the three non-price factors are significantly more important than Price.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government. Unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range. The awarded contract will incorporate the successful offeror’s proposal to the extent it does not conflict with the solicitation requirements.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Management Approach Factor 4 – Price

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have been adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. General Information: The Government does not intend to hold discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held.

Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. Discussion Scheduling: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the

Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

VOLUME I

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Experience factor will be rated as one factor. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the relevance and depth of the projects and variety of construction experience demonstrated by the projects submitted. Depth is defined as the number of relevant similar projects. Within the Experience Factor there are no Sub-factors. Individual elements evaluated in Experience are all equal to each other.

If the offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture or with major subcontractors, relevant projects involving the same team will be given the most credit. Regardless of the number of Joint Venture partners, no more than five (5) Attachment 2, Project Experience Forms may be submitted for this factor. Submissions above five (5) projects on the Experience Overview Sheet and/or the Project Experience Forms will not be evaluated.

1. Experience contains a pass/fail element. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror submitted at least three (3) projects that were performed by the prime (i.e. the Offeror). In case of a Joint Venture (JV), the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet that minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

2. The Government will evaluate the depth, recency and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Poland or a member country of the European Union (the European Union member country as identified by European Union: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en).

b. Projects with a cost of €5,000,000 to €50,000,000. Larger projects with a measureable monetary value and scope of work that is relevant to this procurement will be considered.

3. Projects considered fully relevant shall be completed within the last ten (10) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation;

performed in Poland or the European Union; between €5,000,000 and €50,000,000; and include the following:

a. New concrete airfield paving, including subbase, (greater than 2000 m2) and drainage (grading, large area storm drainage, etc.);

b. New asphalt airfield paving, including subbase, (greater than 2000 m2 ) and drainage (grading, large area storm drainage, etc.);

c. Heavy construction of civil work systems to include but not limited to (hardstand paving, large area storm drainage, site work, electrical, utilities, mechanical, site investigations, demolition, deforestation, etc.);

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en

d. Other airfield runway work: resurfacing existing airfield pavement, grooving, pavement markings, navigation aids, approach lighting, arresting gear installation, etc.

4. The following characteristics will impact relevancy (in no order of importance):

a. Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple categories are considered more relevant.

b. Projects older than 10 years may be considered, but will be considered less relevant.

c. Projects outside of the €5,000,000 to €50,000,000 may be considered, but will be considered less relevant.

d. Projects in Poland are considered more relevant.

e. Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key

Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners working together are considered more relevant.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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

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.

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

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

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 adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

2. Past Performance will be evaluated for projects completed in the last 10 years from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete).

3. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Quality: The degree to which the Offeror has complied with the contract requirements; met quality standards; was timely in regard to problem resolution without extensive customer guidance; and the shown effectiveness of his prior quality control program.

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance: Whether the Offeror met contract completion dates including significant milestones and where schedules were exceeded, whether the Offeror identified valid justifications for the delays or if liquidated damages were assessed due to late delivery by the Offeror.

c. Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which end-users were satisfied with the project; whether the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in regard to resolving disagreements; whether the Offeror was responsive and businesslike with concern for the customer, and whether the Offeror achieved customer satisfaction.

d. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce; controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed projects and easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

e. Cost/Financial Management: Whether the Offeror met the contract requirements by completing the project at the agreed to price and where not, the extent to which the Offeror was responsible for cost increases; whether the Offeror provided alternative methods that benefited the client; whether the Offeror submitted invoices timely with sufficient documentation to substantiate requested payment and avoided significant unexplained variances from the original price.

f. Safety/Security: The Offeror’s prior record for maintaining an environment of safety, adherence to a safety plan, and compliance with safety requirements, including following safety regulations, housekeeping, and correcting noted deficiencies, as well as the Offeror’s prior compliance with all security requirements and personnel security requirements when applicable.

4. The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

5. The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

6. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW 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.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

The Past Performance Relevancy Ratings are as follows:

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.

The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are as follows:

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Proposals will be evaluated for feasibility, reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a comprehensive understanding of managing the contract. The Management Plan will be evaluated as one (1) factor. Within the Management Plan Factor there are no Sub-factors. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the

Government, on the organizational chart (graph) organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. Whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities, to include the roles and major responsibilities and authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs, presented in a logical manner, for the

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

Limited

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

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.

Unknown

(Neutral)

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.

a. Program Manager

b. Project Manager

c. Site Superintendent

d. Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Manager; and

e. Site, Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, security manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc).

Experience of Key Personnel on projects in Poland or the EU is relevant, work demonstrated with the US Army Corps of Engineers or the Government of the United States is considered more relevant.

3. Provides project execution plan that describes a viable strategy to execute the project while achieving the desire quality as described in the solicitation. The pland should provide a precise explanation illustrating an understanding of the contract requirements by describing management for performance of the contract including:

a. Start-up / mobilization,

b. Initial submittals (including a summary of required safety and quality control plan submittals),

c. Plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors.

d. Staffing of the field office,

e. Plan to supply labor and acquire materials/equipment,

f. Plan for compliance with base acess and security requirements, and,

g. Plan and commitment to successfully meet contract obligations.

h. Additional and/or unique management advantages provided to the Government.

4. Provides a Quality Control Plan with descriptions of the plans procedures, controls, and people used within the Contractor’s organization that satisfy the requirements of this solicitation.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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

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.

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

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

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 adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

VOLUME II

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate CLIN prices and total award price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Evaluation of any options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

In order to be considered acceptable, offerors must submit prices for all contract line item numbers and a total award price identified in the price schedule. Failure to submit a price and failure to complete all CLINs will result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

1. Completeness – To be complete the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary to evaluate the prices including all CLINS on the Price Schedule. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

2. Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. Price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price may include, but is not limited to, the following:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

(End of Summary of Changes)