Am-0002_FINAL.pdf

BAS-17-0009

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

FY17 Republic of Georgia MATOC

(see continued)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Feb-2017

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 W912GB-17-R-0023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Dec-2016

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

08-Feb-2017

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:

W912GB-17-R-0023

Am-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

AM-0002

1. CHANGES TO SOLICITATION. Attached hereto are new and revised pages to the solicitation. The revision mark “Am-0002” is shown on each new and revised page. Revisions are indicated in bold print with a line in the left margin.

a. REVISED ITEMS:

Section 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers, Evaluation Approach.

Section 00 22 00, Requests for Information #1.

b. DELETED ITEMS:

None

c. NEW ITEMS:

Pre-proposal Conference Attendee Sign-in Sheet Pre-proposal Conference Presentation Slides

2. The proposal closing date/time remains 10 February 2017, 1000 hrs Central European Time (CET).

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

OVERVIEW

Interested firms or Joint Venture (JV) entities (referred to as “Offerors” or “Contractors”) are invited to participate in the solicitation or Request for Proposal (RFP).

In Phase I of the Two-Phase design-build selection procedures, Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build/design-bid-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. (Phase I proposal due date and time is located on the Standard Form 1442 Box 13.) The Government will evaluate the performance capability of proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than five (5) of the Phase I Offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase II. Only those Offerors on the short-list will be requested to submit proposals for Phase II.

The proposal due date for Phase II will be provided to the short-list Offerors at a later date.

Proposal submissions for Phase I and Phase II will be made a part of the contract.

BASIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – PHASES I and II

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via AMRDEC. The solicitation shall provide AMRDEC instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the SOW with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

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 proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

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

b. The proposal shall be organized, concise, and shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

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

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

e. 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).

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

g. 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.

h. Offerors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

i. 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 Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer if instructions are not understood.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PHASE II

In addition to the Proposal Submission Requirements for Phase I, Phase II proposals shall meet the additional following basic requirements:

a. Volume 1: 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), for Factor 4 Design Capability.

b. Volume 2: The Pricing Schedule shall be completed in full, including all option periods.

c. Volume 2: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

d. Volume 2: Bank Letter of Assurance and Bank Letter of Guarantee.

The Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) shall be $3,000,000 and submitted with the Phase II proposal (see Attachment 1). A Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) shall be provided per task order in the amount of at least 25% of the Task Order (see Attachment 2). (Bank, Bonding firm, or Financial Institution are recognized and accepted guarantee agents.) The BLA will be returned upon contract award to all unsuccessful Offerors. For the successful Offerors, the BLA will be retained until the first Task Order is awarded which is not the minimum guarantee. Once the first Task Order is awarded that requires a BLG, then the bank letter of assurance will be returned.

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.

3. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience and past performance of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture entity, but a management plan of the Joint Venture shall be submitted.

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 one of the joint venture 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 joint venture.

The experience for each joint venture partner should be clearly described and 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.

9. A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included. The JV agreement submitted to the Government shall be the only valid JV agreement for purposes of performance under this contract or any responsibilities of the JV under the contract. Any changes to the JV agreement must be submitted to the Contracting Officer and is subject to approval by the Government prior to execution of the change.

*** All members of the Joint Venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the Bank Letter of Assurance or Bid Bond.

Make sure to include as part of Phase II Volume 2.

4. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a Key Subcontractor, 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 the prime contractor (for example, the Key Subcontractor is a subsidiary of the prime contractor, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the prime contractor is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Include this information as part of Phase I (See Attachment 7, Sample Letter of Commitment).

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT

No facsimiles or e-mail submissions, with the exception of Attachment 5, USACE Past Performance Questionnaires, are permitted. Only electronic submissions of Phases I and II are permitted to the following email addresses via AMERDEC SAFE (see paragraph 6 below):

Submission and Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact (POC):

E-mail: Candace.C.Lotomau@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2819 Fax: +49(0)611-9744-2612

E-mail: Delos.C.Halterman@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2218 Fax: +49(0)611-9744-2612

Mail and original hardcopy of the BLA to the following address:

Address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Contracting Division (CENAU-CT) Attn: Candace Lotomau, Contract Specialist & Delos C. Halterman, Contracting Officer Konrad-Adenauer Ring 39, 7th Floor 65187 Wiesbaden Germany

Phase I Proposal:

1. Factor One (1) – Experience, Factor Two (2) – Past Performance; Factor Three

(3) – Management Approach; This shall include the following (if applicable):

Key Subcontractors Letter(s) of Commitment, Joint Venture Agreement

Phase II Proposal:

1. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal, Factor Four (4) – Design Capability; This shall include the following (if applicable): Letter(s) of Commitment, Join Venture Agreement.

2. Volume 2 – Price/Administrative Proposal, Factor Five (5) – Price; Submit electronic copy of BLA with Price Schedule and mail an original hardcopy to the POCs at the address above; This volume shall include the information as detailed in “PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR PHASE II, VOLUME 2,” below.

6. AMRDEC SAFE (The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering

Center Safe Access File Exchange)

Phase I and II Proposals shall be submitted utilizing the AMRDEC SAFE Application, https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe. The AMRDEC SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone.

a. The AMRDEC SAFE application can be accessed via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.

b. There are two options to proceed from the SAFE homepage:

o Proceed as Guest - Select this option if you do not have a CAC.

c. After selecting one of the options above, the page will be redirected to the package upload form. Fill in all the required input fields:

o Your Name - Your name;

o Your Email address - Your email address;

o Confirm Your Email Address - Re-enter your email address;

o Description of File(s) - Enter W912GB-17-R-0023-COMPANY NAME:

o File(s) - Click the "Browse" button to select your file(s). You may add up to 25 files per package, so long as the total file size does not exceed 2GB;

File names shall be titled:

1. Phase I: W912GB17R0023 – Company Name

2. Phase II: W912GB17R0023 – Company Name - Volume 1

3. Phase II: W912GB17R0023 – Company Name – Volume 2 o Deletion Date - Select the Maximum date for the package to be deleted from SAFE. The maximum (which is also the default) is two weeks (14 days) from the date uploaded;

o Provide an email address to give access to – Enter---- candace.c.lotomau@usace.army.mil and delos.c.halterman@usace.army.mil o Grant access to these people - This is the list of people you have granted access to the package. To remove a recipient, highlight their name and click the "Remove" button;

o Caveats - Default is "None";

o Encrypt email message when possible - Attempt to encrypt the package's notification email to each recipient;

o Notify me when files are downloaded - You (the sender) will receive a notification via email when a recipient downloads the package;

o Require CAC for pickup - Require the recipient to be logged in with a valid US DoD-issued CAC to download the file(s). Recipients without a CAC will not be able to download the package.

d. Clicking the "Submit" button will upload the files and submit the package. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

e. After the package has been uploaded (and verified, if proceeding as a guest), each recipient will receive a link to the package download page as well as a password. These passwords are unique for each recipient (not the package), and will be disabled once SAFE detects that the user successfully downloaded each file within the package.

Forwarding recipient and sender notification emails to anyone except the AMRDEC WEB Team is strictly forbidden.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I

When the word “Offeror” is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered throughout this Section, it is intended to mean the United States Government.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit Attachment 3, Experience Overview Sheet, and Attachment 4, Experience Information Sheet, detailing previous work experience projects meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

1. Information for completing Attachment 3 and Attachment 4:

a. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment 3, with a total listing not-to-exceed five (5) projects that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation. Projects must be performed within the last six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or currently being performed if at least 50% complete, as of the date of this solicitation, If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated. If the project is older than 6 years, it may be considered less relevant.

b. Offerors shall provide an Experience Information Sheet, Attachment 4, for each project listed on Attachment 3, Experience Overview Sheet.

2. Projects provided for experience should demonstrate the experience in managing multiple projects performed simultaneously. Projects also should show experience in performance in the Republic of Georgia; be between $50,000 to $5,000,000; and including the elements listed below. Offerors may submit higher valued within a larger project if there is a distinct scope of work with a measurable performance period and measurable 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 the scope and how it related to the overall contract. Small projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant. Projects should demonstrate experience in:

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant characteristics as possible.

a. Renovations of buildings

b. New Construction;

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

d. Design/Build construction projects.

3. If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the experience with those Key Subcontractors. If a Joint Venture, clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects. The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity or the Prime and Key subcontractor working successfully together on relevant previous projects.

NOTE: The prime contractor must have performed at least three (3) of the five (5) projects submitted for experience. This aspect of Experience is a pass/fail element. In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 5, 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 1, Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 5), 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 point of contact, Candace Lotomau via email at candace.c.lotomau@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 a completed Department of Defense, DD2626 form or a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), in lieu of Attachment 5. DD2626s shall be signed by all designated authorities for consideration of evaluation.

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, commercial and foreign government evaluations 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 and the government is under no obligation to check other sources.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Submission Requirements:

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will not be evaluated by the Government.

The Offeror shall submit a graphical description (an organization chart) of its planned organization structure 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, front and back equals two pages. If more than thirty (30) pages are submitted, only the first thirty (30) pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart, resumes (if provided), and letters of commitment are not considered part of the thirty (30) pages. The Management Approach shall include the following:

1. An organization chart (graph) that shows: a) lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract; b) clearly shows the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Design Quality Control Manager and Safety Manager, c) the organization chart shall also include all JV Partners and Key Subcontractors, when applicable; and d) 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, Key Subcontractors, and key personnel (Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Design Quality Control Manager and Safety Manager) shall be described. The position titles used in the narrative must match those used in the organization chart. 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.

3. The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of five (5) task orders for general building construction, with no design-build, with a value of all five (5) task orders totaling $10,000,000, including mobilization to the site; how to staff multiple 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.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE II, VOLUME 1

FACTOR 4: DESIGN CAPABILITY

Submission Requirements:

For Factor Four (4) – Design Capability, the Offeror shall submit their plan for obtaining Designer(s) of Record appropriate for the anticipated work that may be ordered under this contract (Design-Build: Pavements, New Work, and Renovation of Major Building Systems). At a minimum the plan shall include the following:

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

2. Plan shall demonstrate Offerors’ understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in the Republic of Georgia, and the ability to meet these requirements

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE II, VOLUME 2

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Submission Requirements

Offerors shall submit a completed Pricing Schedule (see Attachment 6) for all base and option periods as part of the Price Proposal Package. Failure to submit a Price Schedule and failure to complete all Line Items on the Price Schedule, including the Base and all Option years, may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

Contractors shall complete the Price Schedule utilizing U.S. Dollars. Award of the IDIQ contract and Task Orders will be in U.S. Dollars.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The source selection process will use a two-phase 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 qualified in Phase I, they will be required to submit additional information for Phase II for evaluation.

Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. 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

The SSA will use the consensus ratings from the evaluation of the Phase I proposal submittals. Offerors evaluated as most qualified will be notified by the Contracting Officer to submit the Phase II Proposal Requirements.

Phase II:

Factor 4 – Design Capability Factor 5 – Price

1. Basis for Award:

The requirements for the preparation and submission of proposals and the requirements for the evaluation of proposals in response to this solicitation are contained in the Request for Proposals. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the award will be made to two (2) but not more than five (5) Offerors in accordance with Section 2305a of title 10, United States Code who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value to the Government. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of five (5) factors:

Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, Design Capability, and Price.

Experience contains a pass/fail element. The Offerors have to submit at least three (3) of the five (5) projects that were performed as the prime (i.e. the offeror). In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet that minimum requirement are not eligible for award. Once the proposal is rated “Pass” for this aspect, the relative weight of the evaluation factors is as follows: Experience is significantly more important than Past Performance, Past Performance is significantly more important than Management Approach, and Management Approach is significantly more important than Design Capability, and when combined, the four non-price factors are significantly more important than Price.

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.

Unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range. The awarded contract will incorporate the successful Offerors proposal to the extent it offers betterments and does not conflict with the solicitation requirements.

The source selection process will use a two-phase selection approach as authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2305a. The first phase of the selection process will determine if the contractor is among the most highly qualified as outlined in the solicitation.

Additionally, this procurement will utilize “On-Ramp, Off-Ramp” procedures, which are outlined in Section 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract. The Government reserves the right to re-open competition at any time during the term of the contract, to either remove or add awardees after a thorough review process to have a total of two (2) but no more than five (5) Contractors in the MATOC, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

2. Discussions:

a. GENERAL INFORMATION: The Government does not intend to hold discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

b. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

3. Competitive Range:

The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors are urged to reflect their best possible terms, to include price related elements, since less than the best potential terms / prices could result in the exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.

4. The following are definitions of commonly used terms in the evaluation process:

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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).

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 “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

EVALUATION APPROACH

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 been 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 techniques.

PHASE I

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Evaluation Criteria:

1. The Government will evaluate the depth and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in the Republic of Georgia.

b. Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously.

c. Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners working together 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 that is relevant to this procurement. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction that shows relevant experience. Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract. Projects outside the relevant range may be considered less relevant. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

2. Projects considered relevant shall be completed within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation; performed in the Republic of Georgia; between $50,000 and $5,000,000; and include the following:

a. Renovations of buildings

b. New Construction;

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

d. Design/Build construction projects.

Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple trades are considered more relevant. Projects older than six (6) years may be considered, but will be considered less relevant. Projects that do not meet these criteria above may be given a lower relevancy rating. Projects meeting all criteria will be given a higher relevancy rating.

NOTE: The prime contractor must have performed at least three (3) of the five (5) projects submitted for experience.

This aspect of Experience is a pass/fail element. In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

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

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The Government will 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 six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete).

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 JV 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.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below. Past Performance will be rated on both Relevancy and Confidence. The Relevancy ratings are as follows:

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.

The Past Performance Confidence Ratings are as follows:

FACTOR 3: 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. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the Government, on the organizational chart (graph) organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. Whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the a) Program Manager, b) Project Manager , c) Site Superintendent, d) Quality Control Manager, e) Design Quality Control Manager and f) Safety Manager, and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, security manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc). Include the roles and major responsibilities and authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs, presented in a logical manner.

3. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of five (5) simultaneous task orders that illustrates a thorough understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or JV agreements, when applicable.

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

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

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of

PHASE II

VOLUME 1

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. Plan shall demonstrate Offerors’ understanding of certification and registration requirements for design in the Republic of Georgia, and ability to meet these 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.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the…