SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MEMORANDUM OF NEGOTIATIONS
Repair & Upgrading Electrical Systems of District Office Buildings, (D 8/22, D 12/21 & D20)
Kabul, Afghanistan
(Subcontract No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
1. Identification of the type of subcontract to be used:
A Fixed Price Subcontract was selected, since the XXXXX project enables:
 A clear identification of the products that will be delivered by the subcontractor.
 The anticipated definition of estimated delivery dates.
 To fix payments upon the delivery and acceptance of products on previously-agreed dates.
2. Project purpose:
Many Kabul public facilities are in disrepair. XXXXX is working with Kabul Municipality to make
modest and cost-effective facilities upgrades to critical municipal offices.
This project aims to make comprehensive improvements in the electrical systems of the following
Buildings owned by the Municipality of Kabul:
 Headquarter offices of Districts 8/22, 12/21 & 20
 The Subcontractor shall design and install a complete electrical system for this building based
on the NEC08 standards, including, but not limited to:
o Main fuse panels,
o Lighting,
o Electric outlets,
o Connections to all HVAC and plumbing equipment (such as water heaters),
o Grounding system, and
o Surface mounted conduit for all electrical cable
o New electrical wiring
3. Project summary:
The goal of USAID’s (XXXXXX PROJECT) project is to provide technical assistance to the Kabul
municipality to create effective, democratic, transparent, and accountable, municipal governance.
XXXXXX PROJECT will:
1) Increase the capacity of city officials in Kabul through classroom and on the job training,
2) Improve the delivery of municipal services to Kabul citizens through rapid response projects
and community engagement, and
3) Increase municipal capacity to generate revenues and to account for expenditures and
revenues. As a result of XXXXXX PROJECT, Kabul citizens will receive better services,
understand the responsibilities of their municipal leaders, participate in municipal decisionmaking process, and see local governance structures as legitimate.
4. Competitive process:
XXXXXX project/XXXXXX PROJECT advertised the Request for Proposal No. XXXXXX project/XXXXXX
PROJECT-002-085 entitled “Repair & Upgrading Electrical Systems of District Office Buildings. (D 8/22,
D 12/21 & D20) Kabul, Afghanistan” on August 18, 2011 through the open competition in three
websites.
 Acbar – www.acbar.org/rfp
 ARDS – www.ards.gov.af/tender and
Page 1 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Afghan First - www.afghanfirst.org/tender
And the following 6 firms responded:
No
Name of Firm
E-mails
1
2
3
4
5
6
Golden Galaxy Construction Company- GGCC
Afghan Light Construction Company – ALCC
Global Construction & Road Rehabilitation Co. – GCRC
Green Place Construction & Engineering Co. (GPCEC)
Abu Raihan Construction Company – ARCC
Peshgam Construction Company – PCC
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Responsiveness Determination:
Before conducting the evaluation, the subcontracting team conducted the “Responsive
Determination”. One firm was considered “non-responsive” by the Contracts Specialist and
approved by the Deputy Chief of Party as its proposal clearly failed to provide specific documents
required and was also considered “materially non-responsive” because they omitted information
that could have had potentially affected the outcome of the evaluation as it pertained to its
proposal. The firm was: GCRC associated sheet is in the subcontract File. The remaining 5 companies
were considered responsive.
Technical Evaluation Summary:
The evaluation committee was comprised of three individuals; two from AUCC, one from the Kabul
Municipality and an individual from XXXXXX PROJECT Subcontracts Department to oversee the
technical evaluation process and provide assistance as needed. The individuals in attendance are
identified below:
Evaluators:
XXXXXXXXXX - AUCC
XXXXXXXXXXX – AUCC
XXXXXXXXXX – Kabul Municipality
Observers:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX - Contracts Specialist
The RFP stated the “Offerors must have at least 30 points out of 55 points to be considered technically
qualified” all responsive firms were evaluated technically in accordance with the evaluation criteria
listed below:
Technical Evaluation
Score
To receive full credit, Bidders must have satisfactorily completed a minimum of 2 projects of
10
comparable value or scope of work within the past 24 months. List references.
To receive full credit, Bidders must have satisfactorily completed a minimum of 2 technically
10
related Projects within the past 12 months. List References.
To receive full credit, Bidders must provide evidence that they have successfully met
10
technical requirements on 2 projects within the past 12 months.
To receive full credit Bidders must provide evidence that they have, or have access to, the
5
equipment required to perform the project.
Bidders must submit CV’s or other documentation stating the relevant educational and on
the job qualifications of the person who will be assigned to this project as the responsible
15
engineer or supervisor.
Bidders must submit a project schedule identifying their plan to complete the required work.
5
Total Technical Scores
55
Page 2 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Results of the evaluation are summarized below with the individual and composite evaluation sheets
in the subcontract File.
Ranking
Bidder's Name
1
2
3
4
5
XXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYYYYYYYYYYYY
XXXXXXXXXXXX
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Average
Technical
Obtained Scores
46.00/55
38.33/55
37.33/55
37.00/55
31.67/55
All five proposals evaluated received the minimum required points to move forward into the financial
evaluation phase.
Financial Review:
Per the RFP an award for this project would be made to the lowest priced, technically qualified
supplier. The five responsive offers are listed below:
Ranking
Offeror's Name
Price (US)
1
2
3
4
5
XXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYYYYYYYYYYYY
XXXXXXXXXXXX
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$109,328.88
$116,373.00
$123,544.70
$131,113.00
$131,357.50
Financial and Technical Summary Score:
The Subcontract team reviewed the financial proposals as no price ratings were assigned and the
intent was to make award to the lowest price, technically qualified Offeror. The summary results
are provided below:
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Offeror's Name
Golden Galaxy Construction CompanyGGCC
Afghan Light Construction Company –
ALCC
Peshgam Construction Company – PCC
Green Place Construction & Engineering
Co. (GPCEC)
Abu Raihan Construction Company –
ARCC
Internal
Estimate
(US)
Price (US)
Technical
Score
$109,328.88
37.00/55
$116,373.00
31.67/55
$110,203.40 $123,544.70
37.33/55
$131,113.00
46.00/55
$131,357.50
38.33/55
Of the five firms considered technically qualified to perform the required work, Golden Galaxy
Construction Company- GGCC offered the lowest price, and consistent with RFP Award Criteria, is
the company recommended for award.
Page 3 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Negotiations:
Considering the fact that adequate price competition exists in accordance with the FAR 15.403-1,
it was not necessary to conduct further negotiations with them.
5. Determination of fair and reasonable price:
The price proposed by Golden Galaxy Construction Company- GGCC, $109,328.88 is determined
to be fair and reasonable based on the competitive nature of the RFP in conjunction with FAR
15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(A-B). Adequate price competition existed in accordance with the above FAR
reference as five responsible Offerors completed independently submitting priced proposals that
satisfied the expressed requirement.
6. Responsibility Determination.
Based on the technical, financial and past performance evaluations, Golden Galaxy Construction
Company- GGCC was considered responsible in the terms of FAR 9.104-1.
The required certifications are found in Attachment A, of the Subcontract. The legal instrument
can only be signed by TT-ARD Representative after the subcontractor signs the Subcontract and
the certifications.
The AISA certification is valid. GGCC is not included in the List of Parties Excluded from Federal
Procurement and Non procurement Programs (EPLS), in the SDN list, or in the UN list, 1267. Copies
of the search results are attached.
7. Approval from USAID.
 USAID/COTR approved the SOW on August 29, 2011.
 CO’s approval is not required, since the subcontract is less than 150k.
Certification:
The undersigned certify that the selection was undertaken using established XXXXXX
project/XXXXXX PROJECT selection.
____________________
____________________
Carlos Arciniegas
Jon Bormet
Contracts Specialist
XXXXXX PROJECT Team Leader
XXXXXX project/XXXXXX PROJECT
XXXXXX project/XXXXXX PROJECT
Date: September 25, 2011.
Page 4 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AISA CERTIFICATE
https://www.epls.gov/epls/search.do?multiName=true
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pdf
Page 5 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/pdf/consolidatedlist.pdf
Page 6 of 7
SC No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 7 of 7