AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE 1 OF

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.

NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., street,city,county,State,and ZIP Code) 9a. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9b. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10a. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10b. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is is extended, is not extended Offers 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 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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.)

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) 16A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. NAME OF CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C.DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C.DATE SIGNED

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11-2016)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Djordjevicz Highlight

Djordjevicz Highlight

Djordjevicz Highlight

Djordjevicz Highlight

U.S. Embassy Brussels 19BE2026Q0004

SECTION 4 - EVALUATION FACTORS

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Compliance Review

2. Technical Capability & Strategic Plan

3. Prior Experience and Past Performance

4. Company Profile

5. Price

Technical Capability; Prior Experience and Past Performance; Company Profile: when combined, are more important compared to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

The Government will award a contract only to an offeror whose technical proposal establishes that it can meet the needs of the Government. Among offerors in this category, the Government considers technical to be more important than price or cost in value. The proposed price or cost must be considered reasonable and must reflect the proposed technical approach. The Government will evaluate proposals first from a technical standpoint without regard to proposed prices. The Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. If two or more offers are considered technically equivalent, price or cost may become of primary importance in determining the proposal most advantageous to the Government.

The Government intends to award a single standalone contract resulting from this solicitation.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government’s evaluation of proposals will be conducted utilizing the evaluation factors of:

a. Compliance Review

b. Technical Capability & Strategic Plan

c. Prior Experience and Past Performance

d. Company Profile

e. Price

COMPLIANCE REVIEW

The Government will perform an initial review of proposals received to determine compliance with the terms of the solicitation. The Government may reject as unacceptable proposals that do not conform to the solicitation. Submit the following:

Volume 1:

a. A completed offer, in which the SF-18 cover page (blocks 11e, 11f, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 13e, 13f, 14, 15, 16a, 16b and 16c as appropriate, plus SF30, amendment, if any), and Section I, Pricing, has been filled out.

b. Completed Price Proposal Breakdown (Attachment A). Provide a comprehensive breakdown of the price proposal the total of which shall match that of the firm fixed-price inserted in Section 2, Pricing. Adjust the breakdown sheet as necessary.

c. Completed Section 5 Representations and Certifications.

d. Provide the evidence of SAM registration as required in FAR 52.204-7. The SAM status must be “active”.

e. Completed form W-14 (Attachment B) if the offeror has represented that it is not a U.S.

person and is eligible for exemption from the 2% excise tax.

Volume 2:

a. Technical Capability & Strategic Plan: A thorough and clear description of the methods, processes, and procedures for ensuring performance meets the standards of the SOW

i. Ability to provide necessary personnel and financial resources needed to perform the work.

ii. Offeror’s plan to obtain necessary license and permits as required by local law.

iii. Strategic plan for the services as required in the SOW.

iv. Ground mapping of the event based on the SOW.

b. Prior Experience and Past Performance

c. Company Profile

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of all proposals will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following factors:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability & Strategic Plan

1. Ability to provide necessary personnel and financial resources needed to perform the work.

2. Offeror’s plan to obtain necessary licenses and permits as required by local law.

3. Strategic plan for the services as required in the SOW.

4. Ground mapping of the event based on the SOW.

Factor 2 - Prior Experience and Past Performance: The offeror’s demonstrated record, as confirmed by references, of successful past performance of the same or substantially similar contract efforts at the Cinquantenaire, including quality of services or supplies, timeliness of performance, cost control, and the offeror’s business relations.

Factor 3 – Company Profile: The offeror’s demonstrated complete, clear, and credible evidence that they have the organizational structure, resources, financial capacity, and internal controls necessary to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

Factor 4 - Price: The price will be determined by comparing the total prices proposed by each offeror for the purpose of the Government’s evaluation of proposals and resultant award determination.

NON-PRICE AND PRICE EVALUATION

Factor 1: Technical Capability The government will evaluate technical proposals and the below listed subfactors on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. An unacceptable rating for any of the below sub-factors will result in an unacceptable rating for the Technical Capability primary factor. Accordingly, under the trade-off evaluation approach, offerors who receive an unacceptable rating for this factor may not be considered for award. Note that the Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to award without discussion, an initial technical rating of unacceptable will render the entire proposal unacceptable. Technical

Acceptability shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors where all sub-factors are considered equal:

Subfactor 1: Ability to provide necessary personnel and financial resources needed to perform the work.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror thoroughly and successfully demonstrates the ability to provide the personnel, financial resources, and required compliance documentation to perform the work.

The Government will evaluate if the offeror provided both a Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan and a Compliance Certification Statement. The offeror's compliance with DOSAM 652.222-800, Recruitment of Third Country Nationals for Performance on Department of State Contracts (May 2023), and the Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan provision at FAR 52.222-56 will be evaluated.

Technical Ratings Rating Description Excellent Clearly demonstrates sufficient qualified personnel and strong financial capacity to perform the work. TIP Compliance Plan and Certification are complete, detailed, and fully compliant with DOSAM 652.222-800 and FAR 52.222-56. Very low performance risk.

Good Demonstrates adequate personnel and financial resources. TIP Compliance Plan and Certification are submitted, if required, and compliant, with only minor weaknesses. Low performance risk.

Fair Personnel or financial capacity is somewhat limited or not fully substantiated. TIP documentation, if required, is submitted but lacks detail or clarity. Moderate performance risk.

Poor Significant concerns regarding personnel availability or financial capability.

TIP documentation, if required, is incomplete, unclear, or partially noncompliant. High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory Fails to demonstrate adequate personnel or financial resources. Required TIP Compliance Plan and/or Certification, if required, not submitted or materially noncompliant with DOSAM 652.222-800 and FAR 52.222-56.

Unacceptable performance risk.

Unknown Insufficient information provided to evaluate personnel or financial capability. Documentation, if required, missing but may be clarified. Risk cannot be fully assessed.

Subfactor 2: Offeror’s plan to obtain necessary licenses and permits as required by local law.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror thoroughly and successfully demonstrates the ability to obtain and maintain all licenses and permits required by local law to perform the work at the place of performance.

Excellent Provides a clear, detailed, and realistic plan identifying all required licenses and permits, timelines, responsible parties, and current status.

Demonstrates prior success obtaining similar authorizations. Very low performance risk.

Good Provides a clear plan identifying required licenses and permits with reasonable timelines and responsibilities. Minor details may be lacking.

Low performance risk.

Fair Identifies some required licenses and permits but the plan lacks detail, clarity, or timeline support. Moderate performance risk.

Poor Plan is incomplete or vague regarding required licenses and permits.

Significant uncertainty regarding ability to obtain approvals in time. High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory Fails to identify required licenses or provide a credible plan to obtain them.

Demonstrates inability or high likelihood of failure to meet legal requirements. Unacceptable performance risk.

Unknown Insufficient information provided to assess licensing and permit plan. Risk cannot be fully evaluated.

Subfactor 3: Strategic Plan for Services Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror thoroughly and successfully demonstrates that its work plan addresses all work elements in the Statement of Work (SOW), includes an effective Quality Assurance and surveillance Plan (QASP).

Excellent Provides a comprehensive, well-structured strategic plan that fully addresses all SOW requirements, includes a detailed and effective Quality Assurance and surveillance Plan. Demonstrates strong understanding and minimal performance risk.

Good Provides a clear and logical work plan addressing all major SOW elements, includes an adequate Quality Assurance. Low performance risk.

Fair Work plan addresses most SOW elements but lacks detail, coordination, or clarity in the Quality Assurance and surveillance Plan. Moderate performance risk.

Poor Work plan is incomplete, weakly structured, or fails to adequately address key SOW elements and quality controls. High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory Fails to demonstrate an understanding of the SOW, and/or omits an adequate Quality Assurance and surveillance Plan. Unacceptable performance risk.

Unknown Insufficient information provided to assess the strategic work plan. Risk cannot be fully evaluated.

Subfactor 4: Ground mapping of the event based on the SOW.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror thoroughly and successfully demonstrates the capacity to design a ground mapping that reflects and operationalizes the requirements stated in the SOW.

Excellent Provides a detailed, accurate, and operationally sound ground mapping that fully reflects SOW requirements, including layout, flow, safety, access control, logistics, and contingency considerations. Demonstrates strong feasibility and minimal performance risk.

Good Provides a clear and workable ground mapping that addresses all major SOW requirements with only minor omissions or areas needing refinement.

Low performance risk.

Fair Ground mapping addresses most SOW elements but lacks detail, coordination, or practical feasibility in certain areas. Moderate performance risk.

Poor Ground mapping is incomplete, unclear, or fails to adequately reflect key SOW requirements such as flow, safety, or logistics. High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory Fails to provide a credible or functional ground mapping aligned with the SOW requirements. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of event layout and operational needs. Unacceptable performance risk.

Unknown Insufficient information provided to evaluate the proposed ground mapping. Risk cannot be fully assessed.

Factor 2: Prior Experience and Past Performance Past performance information that is independently obtained, by the U.S. Government, from other Government and commercial sources may also be used during past performance evaluation. Based upon information gained from other Government and commercial sources, past performance evaluation will assess the recency and relevancy of collected information in accordance with 52.212-1. If found recent and relevant, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror had successfully demonstrated an ability to perform. The evaluation of past performance information will be of successful events of the same or substantially similar contract efforts and will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition.

In addition, the Contracting Officer may use past performance information in making a determination of responsibility.

Note that the past performance evaluation performed in support of this requirement does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Measure of Merit: The offeror has developed and delivered services and related events at the Cinquantenaire that meet the recency and relevancy requirements and demonstrate the offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

Ratings Description Excellent Recent and highly relevant experience performing events of similar scope, scale, and complexity at the Cinquantenaire. Records reflect consistently exceptional performance with minimal issues. Very low performance risk.

Good Recent and relevant experience performing similar events at the Cinquantenaire. Records reflect successful performance with only minor issues. Low performance risk.

Fair Some relevant experience at the Cinquantenaire, but limited in scope, scale, or complexity. Records reflect acceptable performance with some issues requiring corrective action. Moderate performance risk.

Poor Limited relevant experience at the Cinquantenaire and/or recurring performance issues. Significant corrective actions were required. High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory No relevant experience at the Cinquantenaire or record reflects serious performance deficiencies that compromised contract requirements. Very high performance risk.

Unknown No recent or relevant past performance information identified at the Cinquantenaire.

Factor 3: Company Profile The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s company profile to assess whether the Offeror demonstrates the organizational, technical, and financial capability necessary to successfully perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). The evaluation will be based on the information submitted by the Offeror in accordance with the solicitation instructions.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the Offeror provides complete, clear, and credible evidence demonstrating that it is an established business with sufficient financial stability, organizational credibility, and transparency to successfully perform the SOW.

Excellent Proposal provides complete, well-documented, and credible evidence of financial stability (including ownership, debt, and revenue disclosures), demonstrates that the requirement represents a manageable portion of overall business activity, confirms established business operations in Belgium (KBO), and clearly identifies subcontractor roles and percentages, if applicable. Very low performance risk.

Good Proposal provides clear and adequate financial and organizational information, demonstrates manageable business impact, confirms established operations in Belgium (KBO), and reasonably identifies subcontractor participation, if applicable. Low performance risk.

Fair Proposal provides basic financial and organizational information but lacks depth, clarity, or supporting detail in one or more areas (financial disclosures, business percentage impact, business registration, or subcontractor allocation). Moderate performance risk.

Poor Proposal provides limited, unclear, or weak financial or organizational evidence. Business stability or subcontractor structure raises concerns.

High performance risk.

Unsatisfactory Proposal fails to provide required financial disclosures, business registration evidence, or subcontractor information. Does not demonstrate that the company is an established and financially stable entity capable of performing the requirement. Unacceptable performance risk.

Unknown Insufficient information provided to fully evaluate financial conditions, business establishment, or subcontractor structure. Risk cannot be fully assessed.

Factor 4: Price For evaluation purposes, the pricing tables are structured to calculate the grand total proposed price for the entire performance. The price will be determined by comparing the grand total prices proposed by each offeror, which will be used as the basis for determining the price competition.

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

The Government will determine contractor responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful offeror complies with the requirements of FAR 9.1, including:

• adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them;

• ability to comply with the required performance period, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

• satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

• necessary organization, experience, and skills or the ability to obtain them;

• necessary equipment and facilities or the ability to obtain them; and

• otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, non-price and price instructions in Section III. Failure to comply with all or any specific solicitation requirements and instructions may result in the offeror being removed from award consideration.

The Government may reject, without consideration of past performance or price, any proposal that has been rated “unacceptable” under any non-past performance and non-price factor. Such proposal will be considered technically unacceptable.

The Government may reject any proposal from an offeror is determined to be not responsible.

The determination of offeror responsibility will be made by the Contracting Officer and will be assessed on the pass/fail basis. The Government will make its determination of offeror responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.1 by using information provided in the proposal and information available from other sources.

SEPARATE CHARGES

Separate charges, in any form, are not solicited. For example, the USG will reject proposals containing any charges for failure of the USG to exercise any options. The USG shall not be obligated to pay any charges other than the contract price, including any exercised options.

AWARD DISCUSSION

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1 (g), the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions based on initial offers. Upon completion of the Government’s initial evaluation of proposals, exchanges with offerors may occur, for the purpose of clarifications and communications in accordance with FAR Part 12. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors for the purpose of negotiations at any point during the evaluation if deemed in the best interest of the Government. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will request Final Proposal Revisions from each of the offerors remaining within the competitive range.

AWARD SELECTION

After completing the rating sheets, assign an overall acceptability rating to the proposal. The overall rating is based upon the ratings assigned to the individual factors. The proposal shall be rated as Technically acceptable, Technically unacceptable, but capable of being made acceptable through discussions or Technically unacceptable.

The Government will award a contract only to an offeror whose technical proposal establishes that it can meet the needs of the Government. Among offerors in this category, the Government considers technical to be more important than price or cost in value. The proposed price or cost must be considered reasonable and must reflect the proposed technical approach. The Government will evaluate proposals first from a technical standpoint without regard to proposed prices. The Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. If two or more offers are considered technically equivalent, price or cost may become of primary importance in determining the proposal most advantageous to the Government.

THE FOLLOWING FAR PROVISION(S) IS/ARE PROVIDED IN FULL TEXT:

52.217 5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

19BE2026Q0004 - RFQ v7 (SF30)

REGENTLAAN 27, BOULEVARD DU REGENT

BRUSSELS, B1000

BELGIUM

The purpose of this amendment is to update Section 4 - Evaluation Factors of the RFQ:

Changing the binary Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings with graduated qualitative rating scale (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Unsatisfactory, and Unknown)