B.08.03_W912GB24R0034_0001 Conformed Amendment 0001 IAF-24-0002C Botswana.pdf

Project is for a design-build project for construction of a health clinic facility in Seronga, Ngamiland District, Botsw ana; Latitude 18°48'45.1"S, Longitude 22°24'51.3"E

The project includes the follow ing general items of w ork, detailed requirementsare contained elsew here in the Statement of Work:

THE GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATES THAT THIS SOLICITATION WILL RESULT IN A SINGLE FIRM-FIXED PRICE CONTRACT AWARD USING A

BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF ACQUISITION METHOD.

A. The estimated Magnitude of Construction is betw een $250,000 and $500,000.

B. This RFP is solicited under full and open competition (unrestricted).

C. Aw ard of this contract w ill be made in US Dollars ($).

This is a full and open procurement. NAICS code is 236220. Size Standard is $45,000,000. Please note that business size in the System for Aw ard Management (SAM) is determined by the NAICS code.

STERLING J ALPHONSE

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

13-Feb-2024

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

Botsw ana, Seronga Health Clinic

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______7 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________450 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________22 May 2024 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

10:00 AM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

IAF-24-0002-C

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912GB24R0034 39

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912GB24R0034

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Attachments:

B.08.02_Project SOW B.08.02 ar182_Att #1_Location Map B.08.02 ar182_Att #2_Conceptual Site Map B.08.02 ar182_Att #2_Conceptual Site Map_Updated B.08.02 ar182_Att #3_Conceptual Floor Plan B.08.02 ar182_Att #4_WHO Septic guidance B.08.02 ar182_Att #5_Preparation of Structural Calculations AOR AFRICOM B.08.02 ar182_Att #6_Sample Dedication Plaque B.08.02 ar182_Att #7 SCOPE PROOFING OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN B.08.02 ar182_Att #8 Specs Binder B.08.02 ar182_Att #9 Price Schedule B.08.02 ar182_Att #10 Bank Letter of Assurance Sample B.08.02 ar182_Att #11 Bank Letter of Guarantee Sample B.08.02 ar182_Att #12 PPQ B.08.02 ar182_Att #13 Commitment Letters B.08.02 ar182_Att #14 Site Visit Registration Spreadsheet

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Design of Standard Botswana Health Clini

FFP

Payment will be made for costs associated with the design of a new clinic to the Botswana standard design (the clinic serves as a maternity ward) as indicated in SECTION 01 10 10, with the exceptions of the bid option items listed below. This work shall include all applicable demolition and removals work to support the work elements contained in this item.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1DB

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0002 1 Job Construction of Health Clinic Facility

FFP

Payment will be made for costs associated with the procurement and construction of a new health clinic facility as indicated in SECTION 01 10 10, with the exceptions of the bid option items listed below. This work shall include all applicable demolition and removals work to support the work elements contained in this item.

PSC CD: Y1DB

NET AMT

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 450 dys. ANP 1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, EUROPE

CENAU-CT

KONRAD-ADENAUER RING 39

WIESBADEN 65187

(+49)611-9744-2600

WK4SF6

0002 450 dys. ANP 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

WK4SF6

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Overview.

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for award of project IAF-24-0002_C Seronga Health Clinic. The basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) 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. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all subfactors).

1.2. This project is for the Request for Proposal (RFP) provides parameters for a design-build project for construction of the Sergona Health Clinic in Seronga, Botswana; Latitude 18°48’45.1“S, Longitude 22°24’51.3“E. The project includes the following general items of work, detailed requirements are contained elsewhere in this Statement of Work:

1.2.1. General site clearing, grubbing and grading.

1.2.2. Provide a new, fully functional, turn-key health clinic facility.

1.2.3. Provide site improvements to include a security fence with perimeter lighting, stormwater system, access road, and parking.

1.3. Pre-Proposal Site Visit. The Government scheduled a pre-proposal site visit on 30 April 2024.

1.3.1. Location: See Project Location Map, provided as a solicitation attachment. This project is located in Maun, Botswana; Latitude 18°48’45.1“S, Longitude 22°24’51.3“E (Refer to the attached Location Map.)

1.3.2. Time/Date: 30 April 2024 at 09.30 a.m. Local Time

1.3.3. Registration Instructions: Registration Instructions: Offerors must pre-register their attendees no later than 24 April 2024. To Pre-Register, complete the site visit attendee information sheet (solicitation attachment) submit via email to thomas.m.bookout@usace.army.mil and phillip.n.tran@usace.army.mil. Offerors MUST pre-register in order to attend the site visit.

IMPORTANT: Any individuals planning to attend must register in advance with all information provided in site visit attachment to be permitted access to the sites—please use the attendee information sheet attached to the RFP. Also, space may be limited and as a result the number of attendees per company may be limited.

1.3.4. On Site Point of Contact. For logistics concerns and questions accessing the site, Offerors are encouraged to contact Marshield Charlery, OSC (charlerymc@state.gov).

1.4. Project Questions. All project questions should be submitted via ProjNet (see instructions below).

Any answers given at the site visit are strictly unofficial.

1.5. Inquiries. Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries in writing via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. The bidder inquiry key is 76GWRM-I3R8BI. The government reserves the right to decline addressing certain questions. Further, no questions, unless in the government’s interest, will be answered any later than ten calendar days prior to the stated deadline for offers. All Offerors are encouraged to register on ProjNet for alerts to stay abreast of Q&A’s that are posted in reference to this solicitation. Only self-registered users on ProjNet can submit & review inquiries. To self-register, go to the webpage, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the key for this solicitation listed above and your email address. After initial login, enter all the required information to create your user ID. Verify the information on the next screen and from there you may submit and view inquiries. Those submitting inquiries will receive a system generated email notification when their inquiry has been processed and answered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

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, to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this request for proposal (RFP) are minimums.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the Offeror’s disqualification from award.

The RFP is available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will be made available for viewing at the SAM website (www.sam.gov) or via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website (https://piee.eb.mil). ALL RESPONSES SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY through the PIEE website no later than the time specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Hand carried delivery or SPS/UPS/FEDEX delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized.

Facsimile submission is not authorized. Please see the complete electronic proposal submission instructions within the solicitation (Section 00 21 00 – Instructions).

Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted with a table of contents and clear divide between each section. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

“IAF-24-0002_C RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf” “IAF-24-0002_C RESPONSE Firmname Volume II.pdf”

2.2. Volume I shall include the following information:

2.2.1. Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance

2.2.2. Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach & Schedule

2.3. Volume II shall include the following information:

2.3.1. Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule

2.3.2. Volume II – Tab B – Team Arrangements

2.3.3. Volume II – Tab C – Financial Information

2.3.4. Volume II – Tab D – SAM Registration/Representations and Certifications

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 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 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 Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Some 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 Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical 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 below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered 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 - Technical Approach & Schedule 2nd

4.4. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

4.4.1. Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

4.4.2. Tab B Joint Venture Agreements (if necessary) Not Rated

4.4.3. Tab C Financial Information Not Rated

4.4.4. Tab D SAM Registration/Representations and Certifications Not Rated

4.5. Ratings

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

Table 1 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.

Table 2 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Table 3 Technical Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 4

Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

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

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

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

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

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 to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

4.6.4. 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).

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

4.6.6. 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 “Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System” (CPARS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System” (FAPIIS).

5. Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance

5.1. Submission Requirements:

5.1.1. Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor (or by a joint venture member or other team member with a signed commitment letter – see attachment # 13) within the last five (5) years which are similar to this project in size, scope, and location. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date will be evaluated but may impact the project’s overall relevancy rating and may be considered less relevant. Projects are considered substantially complete at 90% completion, if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered like this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

5.1.2. Projects considered similar in scope include the design and construction of a small clinic facility in a rural part of Africa that is challenging to transport to from the capital city. This includes but is not limited to the design and construction of a health clinic facility in a rural part of Africa, general site grading and prep work, design and construction of septic tank and leach fields, stormwater drainage systems, and performing electric utility connections to existing utilities.

5.1.3. Projects considered similar in size include projects ranging in value from $250,000 to

$500,000.

5.1.4. Projects must demonstrate that the Offeror (or if applicable the joint venture member or other team member with a signed commitment letter) has self-performed at least 51% 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.

5.1.5. Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features (list is not in order of importance):

5.1.5.1. Projects that demonstrate past performance in Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique, Namibia, Tunisia.

5.1.5.2. Projects that demonstrate working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

5.1.5.3. Projects that demonstrate past performance procuring and executing working in remote site locations far from major cities.

5.1.6. Include the following information for each project: Include as part of the Proposals a completed Past Performance Questionnaire Overview Sheet (Attachment # 12) for all projects submitted.

Provide the following information for each project:

5.1.6.1. Project title, location, and contract number/unique identifier.

5.1.6.2. Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be completed. All projects must be complete to the point that the Offeror’s testing/commissioning and turn over can be assessed. Provide the description of work remaining for all submitted projects that are not complete by the date of proposal submission.

5.1.6.3. Scope of the project, to include the purpose/use of the facility.

5.1.6.4. Whether the project was completed as design-build or design-bid-build.

5.1.6.5. Whether the project involved new construction, renovation, or both.

5.1.6.6. Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both.

5.1.6.7. Type and percentage of work that was self-performed; type and percentage of work performed by sub-contractor, teaming or joint venture partner.

5.1.6.8. The name of the customer, including whether the project was completed for the U.S. Government (i.e., Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

5.1.6.9. Offerors whose proposals have more projects meeting or exceeding all criteria requirements for Factor I – Past Performance may receive more consideration than an Offeror who submits fewer projects meeting or exceeding all criteria. Offerors are also cautioned that the SSEB may assess less relevancy against past performance that do not demonstrate one or more criteria listed above, that are not verifiable. Offerors are also cautioned that their overall confidence rating may be impacted where the Offeror’s past performance on a submitted project(s) does not demonstrate the above 5.1.1-5.1.4 or performance was minor in comparison to the whole project.

5.1.6.10. If more than five (5) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first five (5) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in the Offeror’s submitted proposal.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

For the Factor I – Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and a confidence assessment, as detailed below:

5.2.1. The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy (Table 1 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating) of recent past performance identified in the proposal. Documentation of successful completion of projects similar in size, scope, and location 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.

5.2.2. The SSEB will assign a confidence rating (Table 2 – Past Performance Confidence

Assessments) 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. In addition to the information submitted by the Offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the Offeror.

The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Both interim and final CPARS ratings may be considered. Other sources may, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered. If the CPARS or PPQs for each submitted project within the proposal indicate that the Offeror was required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within their proposal.

Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate such PPQs by reference. The Offeror must resubmit PPQs for each submitted project within their proposal as evidence of quality of past performance. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.2.3. When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

5.2.4. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for the Offeror and the

Offeror’s proposed team. The SSEB will determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and consider this for the performance confidence assessment.

Note: A significant percentage of ratings below satisfactory in the categories of Management, Quality and/or Schedule may affect the confidence rating of an Offeror.

5.2.5. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified in Table 2 – Past Performance Confidence Assessments.

5.2.6. Offerors will receive one rating for Factor I – Past Performance, a confidence rating.

5.2.7. Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral rating.

6. Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach & Schedule

6.1. Submission Requirements:

6.1.1. The Offeror shall submit a technical approach schedule that demonstrates an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administrative responsibilities associated with the solicited project. The technical approach and schedule shall include the following:

6.1.1.1. Manpower required to design and construct the project (include the make-up of teams by trade).

6.1.1.2. Any specialized tools and equipment, required to construct the project.

6.1.1.3. A plan that includes discussion of how the Offeror plans to track and financially plan for Value Added Tax (VAT) reimbursements or exemptions applicable to work in the Host Nation.

6.1.1.4. The Offeror’s safety processes.

6.1.1.5. The Offeror’s quality control processes.

6.1.1.6. Knowledge of requirements and constraints applicable to work in the Host Nation and regionally near the project location.

6.1.1.7. The offeror’s status of registration in the Host Nation; if not registered as a business in the Host Nation, detail how the offeror plans to become registered.

6.1.1.8. The Offeror’s plan to obtain Host Nation permits for the project and who will hold the permits.

6.1.1.9. Subcontracting Plan that specifies which technical aspects the Offeror plans to self–perform as the prime contractor and which tasks the subcontractor(s) will perform, and explains how the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality workmanship in accordance with the SOW.

6.1.2. The Offeror shall submit a schedule that demonstrates an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administrative responsibilities associated with the solicited project. The schedule shall include the following:

6.1.2.1. Schedule Narrative. The schedule narrative should not exceed eight pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 10-pitch font and should accomplish the following:

6.1.2.1.1. Define what primary assumptions used in the Offeror’s schedule.

6.1.2.1.2. Discuss skilled and unskilled labor requirements the Offeror anticipates for critical schedule elements.

6.1.2.1.3. Identify how the Offeror will manage submittals in advance (e.g. 30, 60, and 90 days out), and discuss what potential issues it anticipates and how it will proactively resolve them.

6.1.2.1.4. Discuss how the Offeror will manage subcontractors from a schedule perspective.

6.1.3. Schedule. The schedule submission may be submitted MS Excel, MS Word, or Adobe pdf file format and should be specifically tailored to the project contemplated by this solicitation. If prepared in Primavera "xer", the Offeror may submit a Primavera file also, the schedule should include the activities listed below:

6.1.3.1. Contract Award

6.1.3.2. BLG, Insurance Submission and other pre-construction approvals

6.1.3.3. Notice to Proceed (NTP)

6.1.3.4. Submission of each design submittal required in the SOW.

6.1.3.5. Design submittal review periods as specified in the SOW

6.1.3.6. Preconstruction submittals

6.1.3.7. Site Mobilization

6.1.3.8. Construction activities across various construction trades

6.1.3.9. Initial and Final Inspections

6.1.3.10. Closeout documents

6.1.3.11. Construction completion

6.1.3.12. Warranty

6.1.4. Schedule Assumptions. For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, the Offeror should utilize the following assumptions: plan for a 450 day construction duration, Offeror should use the dates of 30 September 2024 for award and 21 October 2024 for issuance of the NTP, and should prepare the schedule assuming that all base line items and options will be awarded on that date.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute the solicited project through its technical approach narrative and schedule.

6.2.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this contract. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with the solicited project.

6.2.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record, construction firm, and the Government reviewers. The evaluation will be based on how well the Offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e. the structure and staffing) ability to execute multiple concurrent projects, to include the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

6.2.4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction, as well as the strength of the offeror’s proposed approach to control and track revisions to the design. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process.

6.2.5. The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to assess the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the project scope and schedule restrictions that must be considered (e.g., long lead items, site access, manpower availability, critical milestones, etc.). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the interrelated nature of activities in the proposed schedule, the Offeror's overall apparent capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the realism of the schedule. The Government may use independent judgment concerning typical construction durations, as well as the Offeror’s proposed schedule logic and constraints. Additional consideration may be afforded to an Offeror whose proposed schedule:

6.2.5.1. Identifies critical milestones throughout, the anticipated overall critical path, and any parallel activities.

6.2.5.2. Identifies schedule constraints as they relate to the site access for workers and delivery of materials, long lead items, the Government’s periods for review and approval of submittals, anticipated delays throughout, etc. (including restrictions associated with local holidays and United States holidays)

6.2.5.3. Shows a thorough list of activities, during the design, construction, and closeout phases of the project.

6.2.5.4. Distinguishes between prime and subcontractor activities if applicable.

6.2.6. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and capabilities to perform construction projects in wana, South Africa, Mozambique, Namibia, Tunisia, to include coordination with host nation authorities on permitting requirements. The Government will evaluate if the Offeror demonstrated the ability to communicate in English.

6.2.7. For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating (Table 3 – Technical Assessment Ratings) based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. The adjectival ratings in Table 4 – Technical Risk Descriptions are not separate ratings but will be used to define the levels of risk.

7. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

NOTE: The information submitted in this volume is not rated but checked for compliance. Failure to submit compliant documentation may result in your proposal being rejected for non-compliance.

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 forms are included in Section 00010 of this solicitation.

NOTE: The party with authority to bind the Joint Venture (if applicable) shall sign the SF 1442 and any other required documentation.

7.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The Standard Form 1442 and the Proposal Price Breakout Schedule will not be rated. The forms will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the Offer signed.

7.2. Tab B – 7. Team Arrangements

7.2.1. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.). The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

7.2.2. Submission Requirements: If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

7.2.3. JV agreements shall include the following:

7.2.3.1. A copy of their JV agreement in English, signed by all parties of the JV.

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

7.2.3.1.2. The relationship of the JV parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

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

7.2.3.1.4. The structure of the JV and decision-ranking responsibilities of the JV parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work. (d) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the JV to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the JV.

7.2.3.1.5. Identification of party maintaining the JV 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

JV.

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

7.2.3.1.7. Identification of party having overall control of the JV.

7.2.3.2. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual JV parties and identify the party or hired as employees of the

JV.

7.2.3.3. A statement in the agreement that each member of the JV will be jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

7.2.3.4. If one of the JV parties possesses relevant experience and/or past performance, the experience and/or past performance of that firm will be considered as the experience and/or past performance of the JV.

7.2.3.5. A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “JVs” shall be included.

7.2.4. Affiliates. In the case of an Offeror’s affiliates, experience and/or past performance of an

Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the experience and/or past performance of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

7.2.5. Other formal teaming agreements shall include the following: In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement.

7.2.6. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

7.2.7. Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Offeror’s compliance and responsibility review and will not be rated. This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and legally sufficient.

7.3. Tab C – Financial Information

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 Offeror's banking institution. If the Offeror is a JV, submit information for all JV members.

Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Proof of Financial Ability. Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA), Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG), Bonds, Insurance and other Sureties:

7.3.1.1. 40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Sub-Chapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act) and FAR 28.102 require a 100% performance and payment bonds issued by an acceptable corporate surety for any construction contract exceeding $150,000.00. However, this requirement may be waived by the Contracting Officer for work performed in foreign countries if it is found that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond. This contract will be performed in a country outside the United States, and the Contracting Officer has found that it is impracticable for many otherwise eligible firms to access bonding from approved sureties. As such, and in accordance with FAR Part 28 and applicable contract clauses, the following bonding options and financial protections from other sureties are considered acceptable by the contracting officer:

7.3.1.1.1. A 100% performance and payment bond, as specified by 52.228-15, Performance and Payment Bonds – Construction.

7.3.1.1.1.1. The contracting officer will only accept performance and payment bonds from corporate sureties that appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies,” or bonds supported by coinsurance or reinsurance agreements from such listed sureties and conforming to the Department of the Treasury regulations in 31 CFR 223.10 and 223.11, as elaborated in FAR Part 28. The contracting officer requires any reinsurance agreements to be executed and submitted with the bonds before making a final determination on the bonds.

7.3.1.1.1.2. If an offeror intends to provide performance and payment bonds upon contract award, it must provide with its RFP Part II a Bid Bond or other Bid Guarantee conforming to the requirements in FAR provision 52.228-1.

7.3.1.1.2. A Letter of Guarantee, as specified in clause 52.228-1, “Bid

Guarantee”, equal to 10% of the contract award.

7.3.1.1.2.1. This letter may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the contracting officer. This letter must conform to the requirements in clause 52.228-1 and substantively follow the model provided in the RFP. The Letter of Guaranty must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority.

7.3.1.1.2.2. If an offeror intends to provide a Letter of Guarantee upon contract award, it must provide with its RFP Part II a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) equal to 10% of the proposed price and substantively following the model provided in the RFP.

7.3.1.1.2.3. It should be noted that the Government will draw on the Letter of Guaranty when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract or does not fulfill its undertaking in whole or in part. As this contract requires the prime contractor to ensure the timely payment of satisfactorily performing sub-contractors (see, e.g., FAR 52.232-2(c)), the failure to pay sub-contractors can be considered a breach of contract and may result in the Government drawing on this Letter of Guaranty.

7.3.1.1.3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit that compiles with the requirements of clause

52.228-14 – “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” and is equal to 10% of the proposed price.

7.3.1.1.3.1. An ILC must secure both performance and payment under the contract and substantively conform to the model provided in clause 52.228-14.