A.07.24_-_W912GB-18-R-0016-0001.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

Solicitation Number W912GB18R0016 is for the Engineering and Structural Repairs to the Kombew a Clinic (Renovation), Kisumu, Kenya is hereby amended as follow s:

Section 00112 - Procedures for Submittal of Offers and Proposal Evaluation Criteria has been replaced in its entirety. The revised sections have been highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912GB18R0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Jul-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Jul-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB18R0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00112

SECTION 00112 - PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Engineering and Structural Repairs to the Kombewa Clinic (Renovation). The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2. The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance and management approach necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

2.2. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District in English. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. Volume I – Past Performance & Management Approach and Volume II – Price.

Proposals shall be submitted utilizing the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center Safe Access File Exchange (AMRDEC SAFE) Application at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe. The AMRDEC SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE.

Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone.

1. The AMRDEC SAFE application can be accessed via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.

2. There are two options to proceed from the SAFE homepage:

• Proceed as Guest

3. After selecting one of the options above, the page will be redirected to the package upload form. Fill in all the required input fields:

• Your Name - Your name;

• Your Email address - Your email address;

• Confirm Your Email Address - Re-enter your email address;

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe

• Description of File(s) - Enter W912GB18R0016-YOUR COMPANY NAME:

• File(s) - Click the "Browse" button to select your file(s). You may add up to 25 files per package, so long as the total file size does not exceed 2GB;

File names shall be titled:

W912GB18R0016 – Your Company Name – Volume I W912GB18R0016 – Your Company Name – Volume II

• Deletion Date - Select the Maximum date for the package to be deleted from SAFE. The maximum (which is also the default) is two weeks (14 days) from today;

• Provide an email address to give access to – Enter---- bjorn.t.hale@usace.army.mil and robin.g.prince@usace.army.mil

• Caveats - Default is "None";

• Encrypt email message when possible - Attempt to encrypt the package's notification email to each recipient;

• Notify me when files are downloaded - You (the sender) will receive a notification via email when a recipient downloads the package;

• Require CAC for pickup - Require the recipient to be logged in with a valid US DoD-issued CAC to download the file(s). Recipients without a CAC will not be able to download the package.

4. Clicking the "Submit" button will upload the files and submit the package. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

5. After the package has been uploaded (and verified, if proceeding as a guest), each recipient will receive a link to the package download page as well as a password. These passwords are unique for each recipient (not the package), and will be disabled once SAFE detects that the user successfully downloaded each file within the package. Forwarding recipient and sender notification emails to anyone except the AMRDEC WEB Team is strictly forbidden.

Proposal submission shall be submitted via AMRDEC by the date and time indicated on the SF 1442, or as amended. No facsimiles or regular e-mail submissions of proposals:

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: bjorn.t.hale@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2301

E-mail: robin.g.prince@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2129

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the solicitation requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

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.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical/quality proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Tradeoff Process.

3.2. The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

3.2.2. Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and confidence.

3.2.3. Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

3.2.4. Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting

Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to cost or price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2. Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3. Volume I – Factor II – Management Approach 2nd

4.4. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding or obtain a Not Rated Bank Letter Guarantee and Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5. Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation

Factor 1 – Past Performance: The adjectival ratings for Past Performance are listed and defined below:

RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, location, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

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 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 successfully perform the required effort.

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

Factor 2 – Management Approach: The adjectival rating for Management Approach are listed and defined below:

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating 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.

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: 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 Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

4.6. Definitions

4.6.1. Deficiency. 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.

4.6.2. Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.6.3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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.

4.6.4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

4.6.5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.6.6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

4.6.7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

4.6.8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or

“FAPPIS.”

4.6.9. Betterment. Any component, feature, or system that exceeds the minimum requirements stated in the

Request for Proposal and is included in the proposed price.

5. Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance

5.1. Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall provide Project Details utilizing the format provided (Appendix A) including the descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last six

(6) years which are similar to this project in size, scope, and location. Projects considered similar in size will have a dollar value between $100,000 and $1,000,000. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a distinct scope of work with a measurable monetary value with a larger project that is considered relevant to this procurement. Projects considered similar in scope include structural renovations to buildings; structural demolition, stabilization, and architectural refinishing of structures; and/or projects that demonstrate design build experience. The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar. Projects will be considered similar in location if they were performed in Kenya, and, to a lesser extent in Africa. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. Formats for Project Details are included for your use (Appendix A). Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

Offerors shall provide a completed performance record for the same projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1. If available, a final completed record from the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be accepted for evaluation under this factor. An interim CPARs rating will be considered as long as the minimum requirements have been met. If a final completed CPARS record is not available, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Enclosed).

PPQ Instructions: The offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (Enclosed) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the Past Performance Questionnaire. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. For projects which were performed for other government entities that do not use CPARS, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an offeror has no relevant past performance history, the offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

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.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed three (3).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal.

Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant to the similar characteristics of the RFP.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPPIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

6. Volume I – Factor II – Management Approach

6.1. Submission Requirements:

a. Provide a plan for the management and start-up of this design-build contract 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. The plan should describe how your labor, resources, designers, subcontractors and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Discuss which resources are available but will not be present at the site.

b. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. Joint venture offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

c. Include a narrative description of the organizational structure including roles, responsibilities, and authorities, of all JV Partners (if applicable) and Key subcontractors (if applicable). Discuss the qualifications of your on-site team (e.g., degrees, registrations, number of years of experience, etc).

Resumes are not required, but may be submitted to demonstrate team member qualifications. Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Design Quality Control Manager, and Safety Manager must be included in the organizational 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 plan must demonstrate that the offeror has any Construction/Renovation licenses required in Kenya for performing all work that will be completed under this project. Offerors who do not currently hold the licenses as stated above shall describe in detail their plan to obtain the licenses within 120 calendar days after contract award. The plan must also demonstrate an understanding and plan to have designs certified/approved pursuant to host nation laws and regulations.

NOTE: There is a limit of twelve (12) single spaces typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum of 12 pitch font. If more than twelve (12) pages are submitted, only the first twelve (12) will be reviewed or evaluated. The organizational chart, resumes, and letters of commitment are not considered part of the twelve (12) pages.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic to the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

a. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of the contract that illustrates a thorough understanding of the design-build process, 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.

b. Whether the Organization Chart clearly and adequately demonstrates the capabilities and strengths of the offeror’s organization, including lines of authority, and communication with the Government. An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements.

c. Whether the narrative description of the organization structure is 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) and contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the a) Program 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.

d. The Government will evaluate how Offerors demonstrate their understanding and ability to obtain necessary Construction/Renovation licenses for Kenya for all work that will be completed under this project, how the designs will be certified according to local construction laws.

7. Volume II – Price and Pro-forma Information

7.1. Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule

7.1.1. Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00010, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in Section 00010 of this solicitation.

7.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

1. The Government will evaluate price, for award purposes, based on the total bottom line 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:

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.

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 historical USACE contract pricing. 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 pricing The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject any and all offers.

7.2. Tab B – Joint Venture

7.2.1. Submission Requirements:

Offerors submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture shall submit evidence of agreements with the proposal.

7.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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 with 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:

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

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

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

e. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to sub-contracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

f. 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 W912GB-18-R-0016 applicable taxes for the joint venture.

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

h. 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.

i. 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.

7.3. Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding or obtain a Bank Letter Guarantee and Proof of Financial

Ability

7.3.1. Submission Requirements:

Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of firm's banking institution.

Bonding Capability or ability to obtain a 10% Bank Letter of Guarantee. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded or obtain a 10% Bank Letter of Guarantee for this project.

Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company or bank.

7.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

7.4. Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1. Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00600, Representations and Certification.

The offeror shall submit the following information:

• Number of years the firm has been in business

• A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

• The offeror shall submit the name, address, and DUNS number for any A-E subcontractor identified in the proposal.

7.4.2. Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

APPENDIX A

Project Detail Sheet

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location/Square Footage____________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed_______________________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Prime Contractor Personnel: ___________________________%

Construction Cost:

At Award: $_______________ Reason for the cost growth:

Final Cost $_______________ ___________________________________

Award Date: ____________

Scheduled Completion: _____________ Reason for the time growth:

Actual Completion: _____________ ___________________________________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number)

Project Detail Sheet for Subcontractor

Name of your firm _____________________________________________________________

Project Name/Location

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and the work your firm self-performed

Description of work subcontracted to others

Your subcontract amount:

At Award: $_______________ Award Date: ____________ Completion: _____________

Your performance evaluation by Owner

Your performance evaluation by Prime

Owner’s POC for reference (name and company and telephone number)

Prime contractor’s POC for reference (name and company and telephone number)

Past Working History/Relationship with Prime (including joint ventures and partnering experience)

APPENDIX B

Past Performance Questionnaire

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE

HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT

THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT

TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance

E VG S M U N

with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of Summary of Changes)