16-R-0008_BULMAC_Q A_AMEND_0002.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS

A. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (Section 00 21 00)

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PHASE I

The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government may reject incomplete proposals after initial evaluation without further consideration. The Phase I proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a.

The proposal shall be submitted in ENGLISH, typed, and easy to read.

1. The proposal shall be organized and concise. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

2. The proposal shall be identified by the solicitation number, name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

3. The proposal shall contain a table of contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the page number.

4. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s).

5. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

6. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

7. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer if instructions are not understood.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PHASE II (Section 00 21 20) The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a.

The proposal shall be submitted in ENGLISH, typed, and easy to read.

b. The proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted in two (2) volumes. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. Each volume shall be contained within a separate binder.

d. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

e. Each volume shall contain a table of contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

f. Volume I: Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s).

g. Volume II: Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule shall be completed in full, including all option period, and the Non-Pre-Priced coefficient.

h. Volume II: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

i. Offerors shall submit a CD copy including an electronic copy of the Pricing Schedule. Volume I and Volume II shall be separate files on the CD.

j. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

k. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

l. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer if instructions are not understood.

Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs: The request for proposal (RFP) solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the technical evaluation criteria of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The responsibilities for each Joint Venture Partner should be clearly described.

The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects.

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding Joint Venture Agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any Offerors that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and management approach of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

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

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

1) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing. The joint venture agreement must show that joint venture members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

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

3) The structure of the joint venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

4) The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

5) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

6) Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

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

8) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture. Include this information as a part of Phase I.

3. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a Key Subcontractor or supplier (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor or part of the JV) a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor AND the prime contractor shall be submitted. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a JV Partner (for example, the Key Subcontractor is a subsidiary of a JV Partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the JV partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Include this information as part of Volume I.

4. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

Factor One (1) – Experience

Factor Two (2) – Past Performance

Factor Three (3) – Management Approach

Phase II

Factor Four (4) – Design Capability

Factor Five (5) – Price

Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule Hard Copy

Electronic Pricing Schedule

This volume shall include the information as detailed in “PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR VOLUME II,” below.

Volume I, Proposal, and Volume II, Price, submissions shall be received at the following addresses by the date and time indicated on the SF 1442, or as amended.

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: preston.j.hayward@usace.army.mil

Contract Specialist

Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2834

Fax: +49(0)611-9744-2618

E-mail: Jeffrey.j.harrington @usace.army.mil

Contracting Officer

Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-5995

Fax: +49(0)611-9744-2618

PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR VOLUME I

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit two attachments, Attachment 1: Experience Overview Sheet and Attachment 2: Experience Information Sheet detailing previous work experience projects meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

1. Information for completing the attachments

a. Offerors shall complete Attachment 1: Experience Overview Sheet, with a total listing not-to-exceed five (5) projects, performed within the last 6 years or currently being performed and at least 50% complete, that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated.

b. Offerors shall provide Attachment 2: Experience Information Sheet, for each project listed on Attachment 1: Experience Overview Sheet.

2. Projects provided for experience should show the Offeror’s ability to manage multiple projects performed simultaneously. Projects also should show experience of performance in Bulgaria. Macedonia or the European Union; be between €50,000 and €5,000,000 and including the elements listed below. Projects in Bulgaria and Macedonia will be considered more relevant. Offerors may submit higher valued contracts if there is a scope of work with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within a larger project. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction. Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

a. Renovations of buildings with detailed descriptions of work;

b. New work – Construction of new buildings with detailed descriptions of the work;

c. Concrete and/or asphalt roads, pavements, airfield runway work;

d. Design build.

3. If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, explain in the Management Approach submittal section the percentage of work the subcontractor will perform under this solicitation, how work will be managed between the prime and Key Subcontractor, and address any prior experience with the Key Subcontractors. If a JV, clearly address the experience of each of the JV Partners (JV) and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects.

4. If a Key Subcontractor or JV Partner is being used for experience and the Prime contractor or JV firms have worked together on the projects submitted, that information should be noted as the Government considers such experience more relevant.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors may submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations.

Or

If no CPARS evaluation exists, the Offeror may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2, Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a 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 (Attachment 3), 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 via email at cenau.proposal@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide projects completed within the last 6 years or current projects at least 50 percent complete. PPQ’s shall be provided for each project submitted under Factor 1-Experience. Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, JV, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, 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.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit an organization chart and technical narrative illustrating its organization structure and plan for successful execution of the contract. There is a limit of thirty (30) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font where front and back equal two pages. If more than 30 pages are submitted, only the first 30 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart, resumes, and letters of commitment are not considered part of the 30 pages.

The Management Approach shall include the following:

1. An organization chart that shows the lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract and clearly shows the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and Safety Organization, key positions, including all JV Partners and Key Subcontractors, when applicable. The chart shall identify all offices involved in this contract from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s), and how they are related. All positions shall be identified on the organization chart by title, organization, and physical location. The Project Manager, or the on-site person that communicates with the U.S. Government if the PM is not on-site, and any other personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government shall be clearly identified.

2. A narrative description of the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all JV Partners, Subcontractors, and key personnel shall be described. The position titles used in the narrative must match those used in the organization chart.

3. The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of a task order for general building construction, with design build, with a total value of €1,500,000, including mobilization to the site; how to staff field offices with key personnel currently employed by the prime, and/or JV, Subcontractor, and letters of commitments from additional personnel required to meet the minimum standards of the contract; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by subcontractors. Offerors are encouraged to become familiar with personnel requirements located in specification Sections 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15 General Requirements.

4. The Management Approach for task order completion should demonstrate:

· Staffing of personnel and how they relate to the contract specifications (see 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15 General Requirements etc.).

· Obtaining and providing proof of Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance and Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG)

· The proposal outlines how the USACE Quality Control System (see specifications 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control and 01 45 01.10 USACE Quality Control System (QCS)) will be implemented in support of each task order.

· The offeror shall make a statement that their design complies with the most current regulations, standards, codes, and Design Requirements.

· That the offeror is registered and licensed as a construction company in Bulgaria and Macedonia.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 00) Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to not more than five Offerors who represent the Best Value to the Government and are deemed responsible, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); as judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the solicitation. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of four factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, Design Capability and Price.

Experience is slightly more important than Past Performance; Past Performance is slightly more important than Management Approach; Management Approach is slightly more important than Design Capability. When combined, the four non-price factors are significantly more important than Price To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Factors.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government.

The source selection process will use a two phase design build selection approach as authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2305a. The first phase of the selection process will determine if the contractor meets the minimum qualifications outlined in the solicitation. If a contractor’s proposal is considered among the highly evaluated offerors in Phase I, they will be required to submit additional information for Phase II for evaluation.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE II, VOLUME I

FACTOR 4: Design Capability Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit their plan for obtaining Designer(s) of Record appropriate for the anticipated work that may be ordered under this contract. At a minimum the plan shall include the following:

1. Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record

2. Certification requirement(s) for the Designer of Record within the Republic of Bulgaria and Macedonia

3. Clearly identified roles and involvement of the Architect-Engineer design firm for a project, and ability to certify design IAW host nation requirements

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE II, VOLUME II

FACTOR 5 – PRICE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit the following:

· A completed Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule, containing the Contractor determined Price Coefficients.

· The Offer (SF 1442) duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company.

· Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation is accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

· Section 00 45 00 “Representations and Certifications” fully completed.

· Security (e.g., bid bond or letter of assurance)

· The name, address, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail addresses of the Point(s) of Contact with the authority to legally bind the Contractor.

· Name, Address, DUNS, CAGE, and TAX Identification Number of the Contractor submitting the proposal.

1. Coefficient Definitions Contractor’s coefficients shall contain all costs in addition to those contained in the Unit Price Book (UPB). The Unit Price Book is part of the awarded contract and will be used by the Government to determine maximum prices for negotiations and awards of Task Orders see Section 01 30 00.

The Unit Price Book is based on the German construction standards (Deutsches Institut fur Normung e.V.) DIN Standards. Provided as part of the contract document, is a cross referencing sheet that correlates the DIN Standards to European Standards.

Coefficients are a numerical factor that represents costs (indirect and direct costs) not included in the UPB. The Contractor's coefficients shall contain all Contractors’ costs inclusive of profit, all overhead to include home office and field overhead, cost escalation, labor burden, insurance, adjustments to listed prices, general and administrative expenses, subcontractor mark-up, mobilization and demobilization, and all other costs, including but not limited to, compliance with environmental laws, permits, preparation of reports, correspondence and documentation required by law or the contract specifications, tax laws, protection and/or moving of government property and engineering services. Engineering services include those services that are incidental to construction, and completing submittals for construction work. The coefficients shall also include costs necessary to interface with Government representatives, and coordination with occupants and other contractors when required. For more information see Section 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements.

2. Coefficient Categories Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule is broken into three categories: Books Ordered Most Often; Books Ordered Often; and Books Ordered Less Often.

a. Books Ordered Most Often

Offerors shall propose a Coefficient for each book under the category “Books Ordered” Most Often. A weight factor of 8 shall be used for proposal evaluation.

b. Books Ordered Often

Only one Coefficient shall be proposed for the category of “Books Ordered Often”. The weight factor is based on an average of 6, which shall be used for proposal evaluation.

c. Books Ordered Less Often

Only one Coefficient shall be proposed for the category of “Books Ordered Less Often”. The weight factor is based on an average of 2, which shall be used for proposal evaluation.

The coefficients are proposed by Offerors as a numerical factor as an increase, (e.g., 1.10) or decrease (e.g., 0.95) to the UPB. Coefficients proposed on Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule are accepted upon award and shall be applied to prices in the correlating Unit Price Book when ordering Task Orders under this contract on a non-competitive basis.

3. Validity of Coefficients Each set of coefficients for the base period and each of the four (4) option periods shall be valid and remain in full force for a minimum of 1 year, even if an option period is exercised prior to the 1 year period.

4. Completing Section 00 10 00 Offerors shall submit a completed Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule as part of the Price Proposal Package. In addition to the completed Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule, Offerors shall complete the Electronic Pricing Schedule which is part of this solicitation located on the internet solicitation site. The Electronic Pricing Schedule is in EXCEL format. Offerors shall enter proposed values in the appropriate labeled columns and return a completed ‘Hard Copy’ Section 00 10 00 and an ‘Electronic Copy’ on an Offeror provided CD.

a. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall contain coefficients for all of the pricing schedule line item coefficients for the base period and the four (4) option periods.

b. Failure to submit Section 00 10 00 and failure to complete all Line Items on Section 00 10 00, including the base year and all options years; and failure to complete the Electronic Pricing Schedule, including all base and option years; may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

c. In the event of a conflict between Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule and the CD containing the completed EXCEL Electronic Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule hard copy shall prevail.

5. Column Definitions of Section 00 10 00

The following is offered as definitions of columns as numbered on Row 4 for Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule and Electronic Pricing Schedule:

a. The first column is a ‘Line Item Number’ that is used by the Government for administrative tracking and ordering.

b. The second column is the ‘Book Number’ that refers to the associated construction discipline book in the Unit Price Book (UPB).

c. The third column is a short ‘Description’ of the construction discipline book.

d. The fourth column is the proposed “Coefficient” and shall be used for evaluation purposes and it is the maximum price used to administer this contract, for more information of Coefficients, see Section 01 30 00.

e. The fifth column is the Government assigned Weight Factor. These Weight Factors range from two (2) least often used to seven (7) most often used.

f. The sixth column is the ‘Line Item Weight’’ which is a product derived by multiplying the proposed ‘Coefficient’ by the ‘Weight Factor’ and shall be used for evaluation purposes.

g. The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of all ‘Line Item Weights’ and shall be used for evaluation purposes.

The Total ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of the ‘Bottom Line Sum’ for the Base Period plus all Option Periods, and is used as the basis for award in addition to consideration of the Coefficients, Line Item Weights, and Bottom Line Sums, see FACTOR 6 – PRICE, Evaluation Criteria.

6. Mathematical Format Proposed coefficients shall be carried no further than two (2) decimal places. The rate shall constitute a composite rate which includes the contractors cost including all overhead and profit which may be encountered during the performance of this contract.

7. Contract Administration Coefficients The proposed coefficients on Section 00 10 00 used for evaluation purposes located in the fourth column and it is the maximum price used during the administration of this contract for Task Orders, see Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work.

8. Currency The Unit Price Book is based on Euro amounts. Contractors complete Section 00 10 00 utilizing the Euro for pricing purposes. However, the Government reserves the right to award Task Orders and make payments for the life of the base contract and all exercised options in either US Dollars or Euros.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

C. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 00) Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to not more than five Offerors who represent the Best Value to the Government and are deemed responsible, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); as judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the solicitation. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of five factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, Design Capability and Price.

Experience is slightly more important than Past Performance; Past Performance is slightly more important than Management Approach; Management Approach is slightly more important than Design Capability. When combined, the four non-price factors are significantly more important than Price To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Factors.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government.

The source selection process will use a two phase design build selection approach as authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2305a. The first phase of the selection process will determine if the contractor meets the minimum qualifications outlined in the solicitation. If a contractor’s proposal is considered among the highly evaluated offerors in Phase I, they will be required to submit additional information for Phase II for evaluation.

5. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Phase I:

Factor 1 - Experience

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 3 - Management Approach

Phase II:

Factor 4 – Design Capability

Factor 5 – Price

6. EVALUATION APPROACH (Section 00 22 00) The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

PHASE I (Section 00 22 10)

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Offeror will be evaluated on the depth and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia, and the European Union. Projects in Bulgaria and Macedonia will be considered more relevant.

b. Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously.

c. If Key Subcontractor or JV experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, project examples that demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or JV Partners are considered more relevant.

d. Projects with a cost of €50,000 to €5,000,000. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a scope of work with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within a larger project. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction. Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

e. Projects that demonstrate experience in all the required categories listed in PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE, Submission Requirements. Offerors demonstrating multiple projects with experience in multiple categories are considered more relevant than Offerors submitting one example.

Offerors may provide projects completed within the last six (6) years from this solicitation’s due date or at least 50 percent complete. Projects considered relevant shall be completed or at least 50% complete; performed in Bulgaria Macedonia or the European Union; performed within the last six years; between €50,000 and €5,000,000; including the following trades (all of which are equally important).

a. Renovations of buildings with detailed descriptions of all major building systems of the work performed

b. New work – Construction of new buildings with detailed descriptions of the work;

c. Concrete and/or asphalt roads, pavements, airfield runway work;

d. Design build For Projects that are not considered fully relevant, the Government will consider in its evaluation how the projects demonstrate various aspects of relevancy.

The adjectival ratings from FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Criteria:

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The second aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance will be evaluated for projects completed in the last 6 years as of the RFP due date or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete) only.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Quality: The degree to which the Offeror has complied with the contract requirements; met quality standards; was timely in regard to problem resolution without extensive customer guidance; and the shown effectiveness of his prior quality control program.

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance: Whether the Offeror met contract completion dates including significant milestones and where schedules were exceeded, whether the Offeror identified valid justifications for the delays or if liquidated damages were assessed due to late delivery by the Offeror.

c. Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which end-users were satisfied with the project; whether the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in regard to resolving disagreements; whether the Offeror was responsive and businesslike with concern for the customer, and whether the Offeror achieved customer satisfaction.

d. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce; controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed projects and easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

e. Cost/Financial Management: Whether the Offeror met the contract requirements by completing the project at the agreed to price and where not, the extent to which the Offeror was responsible for cost increases; whether the Offeror provided alternative methods that benefited the client; whether the Offeror submitted invoices timely with sufficient documentation to substantiate requested payment and avoided significant unexplained variances from the original price..

f. Safety/Security: The Offeror’s prior record for maintaining an environment of safety, adherence to a safety plan, and compliance with safety requirements, including following safety regulations, housekeeping, and correcting noted deficiencies, as well as the Offeror’s prior compliance with all security requirements and personnel security requirements when applicable.

1. The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

2. The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

3. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4. Relevancy:

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

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5. QUALITY ASSESSMENT:

Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

6. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT:

The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

successfully perform the required effort.

perform the required effort.

successfully perform the required effort.

assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Criteria:

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

1. Whether the organization chart clearly delineates lines of authority and communication with the Government in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. Whether the proposal contains a comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the PM, QC Manager, and Safety Manager, including roles of authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs presented as a logical approach to perform the work throughout the contract.

3. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for performance of a task order, illustrates a thorough understanding of general task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or Joint Venture agreements, when applicable.

4. The Management Approach must be in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the principal components of work, specifications and/or drawings as well as the offeror’s understanding of the information and other conditions that could impact schedule. The narrative should contain sufficient information to allow the Government to perform a basic analysis of the proposed approach.

5. The Government will evaluate the soundness and workability of the offeror’s approach and method to design and construct a task order. As a part of its evaluation, the Government will consider whether the Offeror’s approach appears reasonable, achievable and reflects logical sequencing and progression of events and activities, including addressing the following considerations:

· Staffing of personnel and how they relate to the contract specifications (see 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15 General Requirements etc.).

· How the offeror will obtain Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance and Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG)

· The proposal outlines how the USACE Quality Control System (see specifications 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control and 01 45 01.10 USACE Quality Control System (QCS)) will be implemented in support of each task order

· The offeror shall describe how their design complies with the most current regulations, standards, codes, and Design Requirements.

· Demonstrates that the offeror is a licensed and registered construction company in Bulgaria and Macedonia, or describes how they will obtain those licenses and registrations.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

PHASE II (Section 00 22 20) FACTOR 4: Design Capability Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for completeness, reasonableness, and logic and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute design for an ordered project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan in relation to their design capabilities described below as follows:

1. Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record

2. Certification requirement(s) for Designer(s) of Record for Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia

3. Clearly identified roles and involvement of the Architect-Engineer design firm for a project, and ability to certify design IAW host nation requirements

The Government will also consider the risk associated with the Offeror’s plan and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute the project.

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Evaluation Criteria:

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed Coefficients for the base period and all option periods. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

1. Completeness - To be complete, the Offeror shall provide coefficients for all base and all option line items. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed coefficients comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

1. Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For Price to be Reasonable, it must represent a Price that provides best value to the Government. The Offeror's proposed prices will be evaluated to determine reasonableness IAW with FAR 15.404-1(b) and FAR15.404-1(g). The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price which may include, but is not limited to, the following:

· Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

· Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

· Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

· Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

· Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

· Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

· Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

2. The Government will evaluate ‘Total Bottom Line Sum’ which is the sum of the ‘Bottom Line Sum’ for the Base Period plus all Option Periods (including the option period for FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). If any inconsistencies exist, whether real or apparent, between the proposed performance and proposed coefficients (price), these inconsistencies shall be clearly explained in the Price Proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced and/or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and the impact on price shall be completely documented.

3. Line Item Weight - The ‘Line Item Weight’ is used as part of the evaluation of price offers and is the maximum price allowed to administer this contract. The ‘Line Item Weight’ is the product of the proposed Coefficient multiplied by the Weight Factor. The ‘Line Item Weight’ for “Books Ordered Often” and “Books Ordered Least Often” is the product of the number of books (11) multiplied by proposed Coefficient multiplied by the Weight Factor.

Formula (Books Ordered Most Often):

Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

Numerical Example:

1.45 x 8 = 11.6 Line Item Weight

Formula (Books Ordered Often):

Number of Books x Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

Numerical Example:

11 x 1.45 x 6 = 95.7 Line Item Weight

Formula (Books Ordered Least Often):

Number of Books x Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

Numerical Example:

11 x 1.45 x 2 = 31.9 Line Item Weight

(These numbers are only an Example and are not intended for a suggested pricing coefficient)

4. Determination of the Bottom Line Sum - The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is used for evaluation of price offers in addition to the ‘Line Item Weight’. The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of all Line Item Weights located in Column Six. Basis for award is based on the ‘Total Bottom Line Sum’, which is the sum of the Base Period ‘Bottom Line Sum’ plus the ‘Bottom Line Sum’ for all Option Periods.

5. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall contain coefficients for all of the pricing schedule pre-priced line item coefficients for the base period and all option periods.

6. In the event of a conflict between Section 00 10 00 Pricing Schedule and the CD…