Amendment_01_Barda,_AZ_23June_2017_.pdf

W912GB-17-R-0044

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Jun-2017 02:00 PM to 05-Jul-2017 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

RFIS

RFIs W912GB-17-R-0044 Construct School, Barda, Azerbaijan

Q: What is the required minimum interior height of school building?

A: Per paragraph 1.7 DESIGN CRITERIA of the Scope of Work: “Project design, site facilities, utility systems and material standards shall be in accordance with the latest editions of the

Host Nation building codes. In the absence of Host Nation building codes the Contractor shall use the

International Building Code (IBC) and/or the U.S. / European codes and technical standards and regulations as required in this RFP. Therefore, minimum interior height shall be per Azerbaijan School Standards.

Q: Could you please explain the issue with the trees in the site? Should they be replaced or cut or something else?

A: Trees within the footprint of the new school building will be removed by the Municipality.

Q: Is there something left in package? I cannot find technical specification of the building. If yes, are you going to publish it?

A: The file Specifications_-_combined.pdf are the specifications for this project. This solicitation is for a design-bid-build project, so it is the Contractor’s responsibility to provide any additional technical specifications needed.

Q: What are the specifics for roof steel (galvanized, open ?)

A: New bituminous moisture barrier, counter lathing, lathing and galvanized metal roofing with weather proofed factory finished surface shall be provided. Stainless steel or galvanized steel fasteners shall be used.

Ventilated roof ridge and eaves shall be provided. New galvanized metal roofing shall be factory finished and shall have minimum thickness of 0.60 mm. Install as required by the manufacturer. Metal roof shall have 25 years warranty.

Q: The experience to be detailed on attachment #3 - PastPerformanceClientForm, is it possible to show an experience which was completed by our subcontractor in Azerbaijan?

A: In accordance with the Solicitation the experience for a subcontractor may be used by the prime contractor if a Letter of Commitment with the subcontractor is submitted with your proposal. See amendment 01 for more information.

Q: "Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs."it is written in the provisions, but if we were not the successful bidder in the bid that we have submitted those experiences and those four experiences are the best ones that suit to this project. What do you recommend us to do?

A: PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs may be submitted, firms must submit the actual PPQs and not solely reference them.

Q: Please clarify which requirement is applicable;

a. 52.000-4062 BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY (NOV 2007) requires the Contractor to furnish a Bank Letter of

Guaranty for the performance of the work in the amount of 30% of the anticipated maximum contract value which will be reduced to 10% during the warranty period.

b. 52.228-15 PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS--CONSTRUCTION (OCT 2010) requires the Contractor to furnish:

(1) Performance bonds (Standard Form 25). The penal amount of performance bonds at the time of contract award shall be 100 percent of the original contract price.

(2) Payment Bonds (Standard Form 25-A). The penal amount of payment bonds at the time of contract award shall be 100 percent of the original contract price.

A: Offeror's shall submit either a Bank Letter of Guaranty in accordance with 52.000-4062 or a Performance and Payment Bond in accordance with 52.228-15.

Q: Our Company thinks that the percentage of guarantee is high. Can the Government decrease it to 10%?

A: Please see the revised BLG and BLG samples and clauses in Amendment 01. The BLG amount is decreased to 10% during construction and 5% during the warranty period.

Q: Should every page of bid be signed and sealed? In this stage we should provide bank letter of assurance or bank letter guarantee?

A: Proposals must be sent via email to Robert Corkrum at Robert.e.corkrum@usace.army.mil and Jefferey

Ball at Jefferey.a.ball@usace.army.mil by the due date and time. It is your decision if you want to sign all pages, but Contractors must acknowledge all the amendments posted on FBO on their signed SF 1442. You must provide a Bank Letter of Assurance with your proposal and if you are awarded the contract you must provide a Bank Letter of Guarantee.

Q: Is it possible to have our other country branch company participate in this project? It is the same contractor but different country financial back up from our other country branch?

A: If the experience of a different branch or subsidiary will be submitted as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a letter of commitment signed by both parties.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (00 21 00)

1. INTRODUCTION: The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via email to:

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: robert.e.corkrum@usace.army.mil

Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2235

E-mail: jefferey.a.ball @usace.army.mil

Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2619 mailto:Robert.e.corkrum@usace.army.mil mailto:Jefferey.a.ball@usace.army.mil mailto:robert.e.corkrum@usace.army.mil mailto:jeffrey.j.harrington@usace.army.mil

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a. The proposal shall be typed and submitted in English and easy to read.

b. The proposal shall be organized, concise, and shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. The proposal shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover If the Offeror is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), the Offeror should identify the SAM

Registration’s CAGE Code and/or DUNS Number.

d. The proposal shall contain a table of contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

e. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s), for the three technical factors.

f. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

g. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

h. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

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

j. Volume I: Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s).

k. Volume II: The Pricing Schedule shall be completed in full, including all option periods.

l. Volume II: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs: The request for proposal (RFP) solicitation does not commit the

Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

3. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience, past performance, and management plan of each of the

Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The experience for each Joint Venture Partner should be clearly described.

The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects.

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding Joint Venture Agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any Offerors that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

a. A copy of their joint venture agreement in English.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

1) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing. The joint venture agreement must show that joint venture members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

2) The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the joint venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

3) The structure of the joint venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

4) The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

5) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

6) Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

7) Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

8) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture. Include this information as a part of Phase I.

9) A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included. The JV agreement submitted to the

Government shall be the only valid JV agreement for purposes of performance under this contract or any responsibilities of the JV under the contract. Any changes to the

JV agreement must be submitted to the Contracting Officer and is subject to approval by the Government prior to execution of the change.

4. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a Key Subcontractor, a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor AND the prime contractor shall be submitted. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to the prime contractor (for example, the Key Subcontractor is a subsidiary of the prime contractor, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the prime contractor is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Include this information as part of Volume

I (See Appendix I, Sample Letter of Commitment).

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

Volume I:

1. Factor One (1) – Experience, Factor Two (2) – Past Performance; Factor Three

(3) – Management Approach; This shall include the following (If applicable):

Letter(s) of Commitment, Joint Venture Agreement

Volume II:

1. Price/Administrative Proposal, Factor Four (4) – Price Submit BLA with Price

Schedule.

Volume I

Factor One (1) – Experience

Submission Requirements:

For Factor One (1) – Experience, Offerors shall submit two (2) attachments, Attachment One (1) and Attachment

Two (2), detailing previous work experience (projects) meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

Information for completing Attachment One (1) and Attachment Two (2):

a. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment One (1), with a total listing not to exceed (NTE) four (4) projects, that best represent the Offeror’s experience performing work as required in this solicitation. If more than four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four (4) projects will be evaluated. Projects must be performed within the last eight (8) years from the date of the solicitation or, if currently being performed, must be at least 50% complete.

b. Offerors shall submit Experience Information Sheets, Attachment Two (2), for each project listed on the Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment One (1). Projects should demonstrate experience in performance in the following:

a. Projects similar in magnitude ($200,000 to $1,250,000), projects outside the range will be less relevant.

b. Project which demonstrate design-build experience.

c. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Azerbaijan is considered most relevant.

d. Projects that are completed or more than 50% complete by the time this solicitation is issued.

e. Projects performed within the last eight (8) years. Projects older than eight (8) years will be evaluated but will be considered less relevant.

f. Projects which demonstrate experience in building schools.

g. Projects which demonstrate experience in electrical and controls work to include transformer installation, buried electrical and control cables, control panels, disconnect switches, grounding protection, etc.

h. Projects which demonstrate experience in minor earthwork, grading, and roadway surface repair

Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a distinct scope of work with a measureable monetary value within a larger project that is considered relevant to this procurement. Offerors shall clearly describe the scope and how it relates to the overall contract. Small projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet the cost element are not considered relevant. Projects older than eight (8) years will be considered less relevant.

All Experience Information Sheets must be filled out completely. The information provided on the Experience

Information Sheets will be used to evaluate the relevancy of each Offeror’s experience. Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy (i.e., if design build experience is claimed the offeror should provide details on how they managed the design process). The project description must include the type of construction used (i.e. CMU block, pre-engineered steel, concrete panel, etc.). Offerors are encouraged to provide additional descriptive, narrative information on projects (not only project lists or titles) in addition to the Experience Information Sheet, but any additional information must pertain specifically to the Offeror’s four (4) projects.

If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the experience with those Key Subcontractors. If a Joint Venture, clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture

Partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects. The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Partners or the Prime and Key

Subcontractor working successfully together on relevant previous projects.

Factor Two (2) - Past Performance

The Offeror must submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment Three (3), for each of the four (4) projects that are submitted for evaluation under Factor One (1), Experience. The completed Attachment Three

(3) shall be included in the Offeror’s proposal under Factor Two (2), Past Performance. Offerors should follow-up with project owner points of contact / clients to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If requested by the client, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, via e-mail, prior to proposal closing date and time. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed questionnaire from a client before the proposal closing date and time, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of

Attachment Three (3), Blocks One (1) through Six (6), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Please ensure correct client telephone number(s) and email address(es) are provided.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The project owner points of contact / clients shall have first-hand knowledge and information on theOfferor’s past performance in connection with the projects submitted in response to this solicitation. The points of contact provided cannot be affiliated with the Offeror in any manner. The points of contact must be independent and must be willing and available to answer questions.

Offerors may provide a completed Department of Defense, DD 2626, Final Construction Performance Evaluation, in lieu of Attachment Three (3). The DD 2626 shall be signed by all designated authorities for consideration for evaluation.

Offerors are encouraged to provide information that may aid in the evaluation of its successful past performance, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition for projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE / DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company / subsidiary / affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Factor 3: Management Plan

a) The offeror shall submit a graphical description (an organization chart) of its planned organization structure for successful execution of the contract. There is a limit of thirty (30) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum 12 point font. If more than 30 pages are submitted, only the first 30 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart, resumes, and letters of commitment are not considered part of the 30 pages. The Management

Plan shall include the following:

b) An organization chart (graph) that shows:

i. lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract;

ii. clearly shows the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Site

Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer, Contractor Quality Control System

Manager, Design Quality Control Manager, and Designer of Record

iii. the organization chart shall also include all JV Partners and Key Subcontractors, when applicable; and

iv. identify all offices involved in this contract from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the

Offeror’s site office(s), and how they are related; all positions shall be identified on the organization chart by title, organization, and physical location. The Project Manager, or the on-site person that communicates with the U.S. Government if the PM is not on-site, and any other personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government shall be clearly identified. This section of the proposal shall not exceed three (3) pages and shall not count towards the 30 page maximum for this Factor.

c) A narrative description of the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all JV Partners (if applicable), Key Subcontractors (if applicable), and key personnel shall be described. The position titles used in the narrative must match those used in the organization chart. Offerors are encouraged to become familiar with personnel requirements located in specification sections 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and

Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15 General Requirements.

d) The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of a design-build contract for general building construction with a total value of between $200,000 and $1,250,000, including mobilization of the site; how to staff the field office with key personnel currently employed by the prime, and/or JV /

Subcontractor; or letters of commitment from additional key personnel required to meet the minimum standards of the contract; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by the subcontractors.

e) At a minimum qualifications (IE: a resume and letter of commitment) should be provided for the i) project manager, ii) site superintendent, iii) site safety and health office, iv) contractor quality control system manager (CQC), v) design quality control manager (DQCM), and vi) designer of record of each discipline. The CQC and DQCM positions may be fulfilled by the same individual if she or he meets both qualifications addressed in the specifications. The resumes and letters of commitment shall not count towards the 30 page maximum for this Factor. The PM should be responsible for the design and construction of the project indicated in the solicitation and must have at least one (1) year construction and construction management experience. The Designer(s) of Record must have at least five (5) years of design experience and must be able to certify designs based on Azerbaijan construction laws, or describe how designs will be certified under local construction laws.

The Offeror shall submit a Management Plan for successful execution of this project. The narrative shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror understands the technical scope of this project. The narrative shall describe, in detail, how the project team will accomplish the project and how the prime contractor will manage the various subcontractors, material acquisition and requirements for compliance with the RFP. The areas of emphasis relating to this factor are; Organization Structure and Staffing; Project Execution and Management; Quality Control and Processes; and

Project Security Processes (these are NOT individually rated subfactors). At a minimum, the plan must include the following:

1. Organization Structure and Staffing: The Offeror must clearly describe its organization structure and provide an

Organization Chart. The description must identify all offices involved in this project from the Offeror’s

Headquarters through to the Offeror’s site office, and how they are related. The Offeror must show the lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract including the communication and authority lines for the Offeror’s Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Design Quality Control Manager, Designer(s) of Record and Safety Manager. All Joint Venture partners and major Subcontractors shall be addressed in this description. The description shall identify whether functions/positions will be filled by prime or by subcontractors.

The proposal shall clearly explain the proposed staffing and how the parties will communicate between each other and with the US Government.

2. Project Execution: The Offeror shall describe its plan for execution of the project. This includes the following elements at a minimum:

a. Project start up and mobilization – identify the activities that will take place immediately after contract award.

b. Initial construction submittals – the Offeror should convincingly demonstrate that it will be able to submit the required Safety and Quality Control Plans in compliance with all the requirements of Specification

Sections 01 35 26.00 00, “Safety and Occupational Health Requirements” and Sec 01 45 01.00 00, “USACE

Quality Control” including all subparts, respectively.

c. Plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors – the Offeror must identify the significant aspects of the work which are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted. The Offeror must identify all key subcontractors by name. The Offeror must identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Prime Contractor and all key sub-contractors).

d. Plan for initially obtaining access to the site (registration of workers) and controlling access to the site during construction.

e. Plan for how communications will be held with the U.S. Government. All communications shall be in the

English language.

f. Plan and commitment to successfully meet contract obligations in the event issues between the Prime contractor and directed subcontractor arise to include disputes over change orders, Request for Equitable

Adjustments, Claims during performance. Plan should also include the Prime contractor’s ability to communication, supervise and interact with the directed subcontractor to successfully complete the project.

3. Quality Control and Processes: The Offeror shall describe its Quality Control plan and processes for the project.

The following minimum areas should be addressed in the plan:

a. Construction Quality Control

b. Safety Plan

c. Shop drawing and Request for Information (RFI) process

d. Risk identification and management program

e. Clear assignments of responsibility by key staff members

f. Identify the start-up activities after Notice to Proceed is issued

There is a limit of thirty (30) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equal two pages. If more than 30 pages are submitted, only the first 30 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. Offerors are encouraged to become familiar with personnel requirements located in specification

Sections 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15

General Requirements

4. If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, explain in the Management Approach submittal section the percentage of work the subcontractor will perform under this solicitation, how work will be managed between the prime and Key Subcontractor, and address any prior experience with the Key Subcontractors.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will not be evaluated by the Government.

b) Volume II:

Factor Four (4) – Price

1. Offerors shall submit a completed Price Schedule, located in Section 00 10 00 of the

Solicitation containing prices for each contract line item number (CLIN), to include option

CLINs, if any.

2. Completed Blocks 14 through 20 of the Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442, duly executed with an original signature by an authorized official to bind the company. If submitting as a joint venture, an authorized official from each of the firms comprising the joint venture shall sign the SF 1442.

3. Section 00 45 00 of the Solicitation, Representations and Certifications, fully completed.

4. The name, addresses, telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), and e-mail address (es) of the point(s) of contact with the authority to legally bind the Offeror.

5. The name, address, DUNS, CAGE, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

6. A completed Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) shall be submitted with the proposal.

Note: Offerors must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) system prior to receiving an award.

If submitting as a joint venture, the joint venture entity must be registered in SAM prior to receiving an award

(See Section 00 45 00 of the Solicitation).

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

00 22 00

Evaluation Factors for Award

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals: Evaluation Factors

1. Factor One (1) - Experience

2. Factor Two (2) - Past Performance

3. Factor Three (3) – Management Plan

4. Factor Four (4) - Price

Basis for Award: Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one (1) Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal is determined to be technically acceptable and offers the Best-Value to the Government, with respect to experience, past performance, management plan and price. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of all factors: experience, past performance, management plan, and price. The

Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price Offeror; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor will become greater as the non-price factors of proposals approach equality. The greater the equality of non- price factors of 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 based upon an assessment that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the

Offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.

Relative Importance of Factors: The proposals will be evaluated based on the four (4) evaluation factors: Factor

One (1) Experience, Factor Two (2) Past Performance; Factor Three (3) Management Plan and Factor Four (4)

Price. Factor Two (2), Past Performance, shall be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. If Factor 2 is determined Unacceptable, the offeror is ineligible for award. All non-cost factors are of equal importance and when combined are significantly more important than price.

Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. However, in accordance with FAR

15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and Offerors notified in accordance with FAR 15.503.

Competitive Range: The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR

15.306(c)(2). Offerors are urged to reflect their best possible terms, to include price related elements, since less than the best potential terms / prices could result in the exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.

The following are definitions of commonly used terms in the evaluation process:

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (see FAR 15.001).

Significant Weakness in a proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (see FAR 15.001).

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (see FAR 15.001).

Factor One (1) – Experience

Evaluation Criteria:

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

a. Projects with a similar cost magnitude. (Offerors are allowed to use higher value contracts if there is a relevant (i.e. lower value) scope of work with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within the larger project). An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, buildings, or Phased construction. Offerors shall clearly describe this relevant scope and how it related to the overall contract. (Smaller projects bundled into a larger project are not considered relevant.)

b. Project which demonstrate design-build experience.

c. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Azerbaijan are considered most relevant.

d. Projects that are completed or 50% complete by the date this solicitation is issued.

e. Projects performed within the last eight (8) years. Projects older than eight (8) years will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant

f. Projects which demonstrate experience in building schools.

g. Projects which demonstrate experience in electrical and controls work to include transformer installation, buried electrical and control cables, control panels, disconnect switches, grounding protection, etc.

h. Projects which demonstrate experience in minor earthwork, grading, and roadway surface repair

2. Projects demonstrating experience in multiple trades listed above will be considered more relevant than those projects demonstrating one trade.

3. If more than the maximum of four (4) projects are submitted, only the first four (4) will be evaluated.

The adjectival ratings from Factor 1: Experience are listed and defined below:

Color Rating 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 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.

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 Two (2) - Past Performance

1. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past performance shall be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is in comparison to the relevancy criteria established under Factor One (1), Experience. Past Performance evaluation shall also determine how well the offeror performed on prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see

FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered

“acceptable.”

2. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on the performance on projects submitted under

Factor One (1), Experience, and any other past performance information obtained and deemed appropriate by the Government.

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

Past Performance Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note above).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor Three (3): Management Plan

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic to the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. The offeror shall submit a maximum of thirty (30) pages presenting the Organizational Chart and subsequent explanation of organizational structure. Resume of key personnel will not count against the page limit. 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/or JV partners (if applicable).

2. The Government will evaluate whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the a) Project Manager, b) Site Superintendent, c) Quality

Control Manager, d) Design Quality Control Manager, e) Designer(s) of Record and f) Safety Manager.

Include the roles and major responsibilities and authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs (if applicable) presented in a logical manner.

3. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process.

4. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of a design-build contract that illustrates a thorough understanding of the design-build process, submittals, reviews, mobilization, permitting, site access, quality control, safety, and any other component necessary to successfully execute the project. The proposal shall also propose personnel that meet the specification requirements and provide subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or JV agreements, when applicable.

5. The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction. The minimum experience requirements for the Project Manager are at least one (1) year construction and construction management experience. The minimum experience requirements for the Designer of Record are at least five (5) yeas of design experience. The minimum requirements for the QM and QCM are at least one (1) year of experience in their respective positions.

6. The Government will evaluate the School Construction Management Plan for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed plan as compared to the solicitation requirements.

7. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms and/or designer(s) of record. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with their skills and background. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process.

8. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes use of local subcontractors (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.).

9. Evaluate how the designs will be certified according to local construction laws.

The rating Table below will be used to evaluate the Management Plan.

Color Rating 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 indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor Four (4) – Price

1. The Government will evaluate price, for award purposes, based on the total sum of all base and option items. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any or all options. In order to be considered acceptable, offers must contain prices for all contract line item number(s) (CLINs) identified in the price schedule. Failure to submit a price and failure to complete all CLINs in Section 00

10 00 of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

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

a. Completeness: To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary to evaluate the prices, including completing all CLINs identified 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.

b. Reasonableness: The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Part 15. For price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals) and the technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if any are unreasonably high in relation to the anticipated work under the contract as well as current industry standards. The

Offeror’s price shall include and incorporate all costs associated with currency fluctuation and inflation. The Offeror’s price shall include and incorporate all costs associated with performance of the project, including labor, materials, securing and storage of materials, and equipment. The

Offeror’s price shall include and incorporate all costs associated with performance of the project, including labor, materials, securing and storage of materials, and equipment. Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible than an

Offeror might not be selected for award because of unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete, inaccurate, non-current price proposal information and/or project pricing data. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject any and all offers.

Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and Offerors notified in accordance with FAR 15.503.

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

52.000-4059 LETTER OF ASSURANCE (RFP) (SEP 1993)

Offerors are required to furnish with their offer an assurance that they can secure a performance guaranty as required by the clause entitled "Bank Letter of Guaranty" if awarded a contract and ten percent (10%) pursuant to this proposal. The Letter of Assurance will be countersigned by the Bank Official(s) from which the offeror intends to obtain the Bank proposal. The Letter of Assurance shall be an original in English. The offeror acknowledges that failure to furnish the original Letter of Assurance with the offer may result in rejection of the offer as

"nonconforming".

(End of Clause)

52.000-4062 BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY (NOV 2007)

Within SEVEN calendar days after the date of contract award, the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer a

Bank Letter of Guaranty for the performance of the work in the amount of 10% of the anticipated maximum contract value, or lesser amount, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, conforming to the format of the sample letter. Failure to furnish the Bank Letter of Guaranty may be deemed a breach of contract. The Bank Letter of

Guaranty will be dated as of the contract award date or as soon thereafter as possible. The Bank Letter of Guaranty shall state that it will continue in effect without change in amount or terms until the work has been finally inspected and accepted by the Government, and that thereafter it will continue in effect until expiration of any applicable warranty periods or extensions thereof in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the contract price. The Bank

Letter of Guaranty shall also state that the bank agrees and consents that the contract may be modified by change order or supplemental agreement without affecting the validity of the Bank Letter of Guaranty. The Contracting

Officer may require and the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer an increase in the amount of the Bank

Letter of Guaranty because of increases to the contract value. The authorization to issue "Notice to Proceed" will not be effected until after approval and acceptance by the Contracting Officer of the Bank Letter of Guaranty. The Bank

Letter of Guaranty shall be interpreted in accordance with U.S. law and is subject to the Choice of Law and

Immunity for Legal Process clauses in the solicitation.

(End of Clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)