B.03.08 W912GB-24-R-0039-0001 19JUL24.pdf

W912GB24R0039

IEU-24-0007

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

The purpose of this ammendment is to incorporate section 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors into this Solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Jul-2024

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 W912GB24R0039

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Jul-2024

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

19-Jul-2024

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Overview.

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for award of project IEU-24-0007

Koknese Nursing Home Renovation, Latvia. 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 the renovation of a building at the Koknese Nursing Home, Iršu, Latvia; Latitude 56°47'34.69"N, Longitude 25°35'36.86"E. The project includes the following general items of work, detailed requirements are contained elsewhere:

1.2.1. Reconfiguration of Nursing Home.

1.2.2. Replace second floor emergency egress stairs.

1.2.3. Provide new elevator.

1.2.4. Repair water supply pipe.

1.2.5. Provide exterior paving around building perimeter.

1.3. Pre-Proposal Site Visit. The Government held a pre-proposal site visit on 23 April

2024.

1.3.1. Location: See Project Location Map, provided as a solicitation attachment. This project is located in Iršu, Latvia; Latitude 56°47'34.69"N, Longitude 25°35'36.86"E (Refer to the attached Location Map.)

1.3.2. Time/Date: 23 April 2024 at 11.00 a.m. Local Time

1.3.3. Registration Instructions: Offerors must pre-register their attendees no later than 19 April 2024. To Pre-Register, complete the site visit attendee information sheet (solicitation attachment

13) submit via email to marcus.d.stringer@usace.army.mil, thomas.m.bookout@usace.army.mil, and jay.d.anderson@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. On Site Point of Contact. For logistics concerns and questions accessing the site, Offerors are encouraged to contact Liene Andersone, ODC (liene.andersone2.ln@mail.mil).

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 4X4P3F-NII575. 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). ALL RESPONSES SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY to marcus.d.stringer@usace.army.mil and thomas.m.bookout@usace.army.mil 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:

“IEU-24-0007 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf” “IEU-24-0007 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 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, non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are considered more significant than 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 II – Technical Approach & Schedule 1st

4.3. Volume I – Factor I - Past Performance 2nd

4.4. Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

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

4.4.2. Tab B Team Agreements (Att 12) (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

Combined Technical /Risk Rating Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

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

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 attachments # 11 and 12) within the last 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 must include at least one of the following; the complete renovation of emergency medical station garages or other similar quick response garage facilities, the waterproofing and insulation of underground facilities to prevent groundwater and condensation from damaging the structure of buildings, and the instillation of vehicle washing stations.

5.1.3. Projects considered similar in size include projects ranging in value from $500,000 to $1,000,000.

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 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

5.1.5.2. Projects that demonstrate working for the United States Government (i.e., Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

5.1.6. The following information shall be provided for each project: Proposals shall include a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment # 11) for all projects submitted. The following information shall be provided 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.

5.1.6.11. PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided PPQ and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should 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 points of contact via email at marcus.d.stringer@usace.army.mil; and thomas.m.bookout@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

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

5.2.2. 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.

5.2.3. 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.

5.2.3.1. Proposals shall include a completed Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 11) for all projects submitted under Factor 1 and a completed Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 12) for each project submitted. The following information shall be provided for each project:

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

5.2.3.1.2. Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete. For projects that are incomplete, provide description of work remaining to be completed

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

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

5.2.3.1.5. Award value and current contract value

5.2.3.1.6. Type and percentage of work that was self-performed, type and % of work performed by sub, teaming or JV partner

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

Clearly delineate square meters for construction and renovation

5.2.3.1.8. Whether the project was completed for the US DoD

5.2.3.2. 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 Offeror’s submitted proposal.

5.2.3.3. For each project under Factor 1, Offerors shall include a completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record, if available..

5.2.4. 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.

5.2.5. 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.

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

rating.

5.2.7. Offerors will receive one rating for Factor I – Past Performance, a confidence 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. Licensing: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to gain licensure to work in Latvia. The evaluation will consider the offeror’s proof of current licensure, or the completeness, reasonableness, feasibility, and the timeline of the offeror’s plan to gain all required licensures in Latvia..

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 455 day construction duration, Offeror should use the dates of 1 July 2024 for award and 15 July 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 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, to include coordination with host nation authorities on permitting requirements. The Government will evaluate if the Offeror demonstrated the ability to communicate in English. Greater weight will be given to offerors who currently possess a Latvian business license in the offeror’s name, as shown on the SF1442, and who submit a copy of the business license for verification.

6.2.7. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Prices proposed will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.2.8. For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating (Table 3 – Combined Technical /Risk Rating) based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation.

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 Price Schedule.

7.1.1. Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Attachment 5 - Price Schedule.

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 Price 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. Reference Attachment 12 Commitment Letters for Acceptable Letter of Commitment Alternatives. If the language provided in attachment 12 is modified; the government may not accept the validity of the commitment letter for evaluation purposes.

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 52.228-15 and 52.232-27), 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. It must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade.

7.3.1.1.3.2. As per 52.228-14(d), the offeror must provide the Contracting Officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the ILC.

7.3.1.1.4. Certified of cashier’s check, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 10% of the proposed price.

7.3.1.1.4.1. The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be in the same currency as the currency specified for the award of the contract.

7.3.1.1.4.2. The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

7.3.1.1.5. United States bonds or notes equal to 10% of the proposed price.

7.3.1.1.5.1. The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The contracting officer may –

7.3.1.1.5.1.1. Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

7.3.1.1.5.1.2. Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

7.3.1.2. If an offeror will use any of the Bid Guarantee options described in the paragraphs above, or a BLA described in the paragraphs above, their proposal must indicate that intent within their proposal submission. Only the above options will be considered acceptable unless an alternative is approved by the Contracting Officer in advance of the closing date for the receipt of proposals in a formal amendment to the solicitation.

7.3.1.3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BID GUARANTEE OR LETTER OF ASSURANCE AS

PRESCRIBED ABOVE WILL DETERMINE YOUR PROPOSAL TO BE INCOMPLETE AND IT WILL

NOT BE EVALUATED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND OR A

BLG AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE MAY BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT.

7.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the review of this section and will not be rated. If the Offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4. Tab D – SAM Registration and Representations & Certifications

7.4.1. Offeror shall submit the following information:

7.4.1.1. A completed clause FAR 52.204-8(d)

7.4.1.2. A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award

Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data/assertions”, and “POCs”.

7.4.1.3. A copy of their current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

7.4.1.4. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier 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.

7.4.3. SAM Registration: An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of an contract resulting from this solicitation.

7.4.4. In order to register on SAM, a company must obtain a NCAGE code and a Unique Entity ID (UEI). You can apply for an NCAGE code and a Unique Entity ID (UEI) simultaneously, but both must be obtained in order to register on SAM. Specific instructions how to obtain a NCAGE code, and SAM Registration are as follows:

7.4.4.1. NCAGE Code. An NCAGE code is a five-character ID number used by the US Government to identify international companies. All non-US firms must obtain an NCAGE code.