W912GB19R0014_Amendment_1_Final.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is:

1) release answ ers to questions asked during solicitaion phase.

2) extend proposal deadline until 14:00 CET on 15 Jan 2019.

3) make minor changes throughout solicitation, all changes are highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912GB19R0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Nov-2018

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 X is extended, 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 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.

U0001

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB19R0014

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 required response date/time has changed from 08-Jan-2019 02:00 PM to 15-Jan-2019 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (00 21 16)

1. INTRODUCTION: The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via email.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS 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.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

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 and submitted in English, easy to read and an English speaking point of contact, phone number and email, must be identified.

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, volume number, and name, address, e-mail address, CAGE code, DUNS number, 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), for the three technical factors.

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. Contractors 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 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.

3. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the past performance, and management plan of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The past performance 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. The Joint Venture must have a Cage Code and DUNS Number, specifically for the Joint Venture, registered in SAM prior to submitting a proposal.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the past performance 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 copy of their registration in SAM with a unique Cage Code and DUNS number for the Joint Venture.

c. 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.

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.

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 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 Volume I (See Appendix I, Sample Letter of Commitment).

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

1. Factor One (1) – Past Performance; Factor Two (2) – Management Approach; This shall include the following (If applicable): Letter(s) of Commitment, Joint Venture Agreement; Factor three (3) – Design Capability; This shall include the following (If applicable): Letter(s) of Commitment, and Bank Letter of Assurance for $300,000.

Proposal submission shall be submitted via EMAIL by the date and time indicated on the SF 1442, or as amended. No facsimiles or regular e-mail submissions of proposals, with the exception of Attachment Three (3), Past Performance Questionnaires, are permitted:

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: Kristina.Morrow@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2630

E-mail: Dean.P.DeFord@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2113

PROPOSAL FORMAT

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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit three attachments, Attachment 1, Experience Overview Sheet and Attachment 2, Past Performance Information Sheet detailing previous work experience projects meeting the requirements of this solicitation. Please note offerors should submit as much information as necessary for the Government to adequately evaluate relevancy of the past performance.

1. Information for completing Attachment 1 and Attachment 2:

a. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment 1, 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 Past Performance Information Sheet, Attachment 2, for each project listed on Attachment 1, 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 Kosovo and Albania; be between $50,000 to $3,000,000; 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. Projects that are below or above the threshold may be considered less relevant.

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 of the following relevant characteristics as possible.

a. Renovations of buildings to include structural improvement and renovation of building systems (i.e., electrical, mechanical, door/windows)

b. New Construction;

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

d. Design/Build construction projects (where the construction contractor is responsible for managing both the design and construction of the project).

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.

4. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3, included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror submits (not to exceed five). 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 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’s point of contact, via email at kristina.morrow@usace.army.mil and dean.p.deford@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 3. CPARS evaluations and 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.

NOTE: The prime contractor must have performed at least 3 of the 5 projects submitted for past performance. This aspect is a pass/fail element. Offerors must submit at least 3 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 this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

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 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. Offerors shall submit an organization chart 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, CQC System Manager, Design Quality Control Manager and Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO), 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, CQC System Manager, Design Quality Control Manager and Site Safety & Health Officer) 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 Conditions.

3. The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of one (1) task order for a design build general building renovation, with a total value of $700,000. The plan should include the plan for design management, mobilization to the site; how to staff the field office 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.

FACTOR 3: DESIGN CAPABILITY

For Factor three (3) – 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 Kosovo and Albania, and the ability to meet these requirements.

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR

AWARD (Section 00 22 16)

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, Section 00 21 16.

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the award will be made to each and all qualifying Offerors in accordance with Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe they would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. If an offeror receives a rating of marginal or below the offeror will not be considered a qualifying offeror. A qualifying offeror must not receive a “marginal” or “unacceptable” rating on any evaluation factor. This source selection approach includes an evaluation of three (3) factors: Past Performance, Management Approach and Design Capability.

Past Performance contains a pass/fail element. The Offerors have to submit at least 3 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 remaining factors will be evaluated in accordance with the adjectival ratings below. The awarded contract will incorporate the successful offerors proposal to the extent it offers betterments and does not conflict with the solicitation requirements. A “marginal” or “unacceptable” rating for any factor will result in an inelgibile proposal.

The source selection process will use a one-step selection procedure in accordance with FAR 36.301, and UAI 5136.303-100. All projects anticipated under this MATOC will be military construction; repair projects with an approved cost of $4M or less; or an authorized security assistance project.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: 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:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Design Capability

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. 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.

2. 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.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is 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.

The Government will evaluate the depth and the relevancy of the experience as submitted for factor 1 in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Kosovo or Albania.

b. Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key

Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners working together are considered more relevant.

c. Projects with a cost of $50,000 to $3,000,000. 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 this range may be considered less relevant. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

d. Projects that demonstrate experience with the renovations of buildings to include structural improvements and renovation of building systems (i.e., electrical, mechanical, doors/windows).

e. New Construction;

f. Design/Build construction projects.

Projects considered recent 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.

Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple trades are considered more relevant.

Projects older than 6 years may be considered but will be considered less relevant.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance of only projects submitted, 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

f. unexplained variances from the original price.

g. 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.

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

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.

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.

NOTE: The prime contractor must have performed at least 3 of the 5 projects submitted. This aspect of Factor 1 is a pass/fail element. Offerors must submit at least 3 projects that were performed by 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.

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

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.

An offeror that receives a relevancy rating of “Not Relevant” and/or “Limited confidence” or “No Confidence” is ineligible for award.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Criteria:

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.

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) Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager, e) Design Quality Control Manager and f) Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO), and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, security manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc).Include the roles and major responsibilities andauthorities 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 one

(1) task order that illustrates a thorough understanding executing a design build construction project, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or JV agreements, when applicable.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH are listed and defined below:

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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

An offeror that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will be ineligible for award.

FACTOR 3: 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 Kosovo and Albania, 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.

Technical 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.

An offeror that receives a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will be ineligible for award.

SECTION 01 00 00 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 00 10

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

1. TASK ORDERS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

1.1 When the Government has a work request, a Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued. The RFP shall include information concerning the statement of work, guide specifications, drawings, attachments, information pertaining to a site visit, design requirements for design-build projects, evaluation criteria, and any other requirements for submissions (e.g., proposal requirements, bud schedule, etc.). As to Bank Letter of Guarantee and Bank Letter of Assurance, see samples provided as attachments and Section 00700-Contract clauses.

1.2 Depending upon the requirements of each task order, the Contractor will provide one of the following in response to an RFP: (a) lump sum price, (b) a price for each line item in the Schedule (when optional items are used), or (c) technical proposal in one package and the price proposal in a separate package.

1.3 Offerors attendance at site visits is considered vital to preparation of competitive and cost-effective offers, and to understanding the total results desired by the Government. Failure to attend site visits shall not be used as an excuse for omission or miscalculation in offers, and may be taken into consideration in determining a Contractor’s eligibility to participate in future Task Orders. The Contractors will not be reimbursed for attendance during negotiations, site visits, proposal preparation or other pre-Task Order award costs. The Contractor Officer reserves the right to make attendance at site visits mandatory for specific Task Orders and to reject offers by Contractors who have not attended the site visits.

1.4 Contractors shall respond within the number of calendar days stated in the RFP by submitting a proposal to the Contracting Officer in accordance with requirements stated in the RFP.

1.5 Proposals will either be accepted as is or negotiated to the mutual agreement of both the Government and the Contractor. Upon conclusion of satisfactory discussions or negotiations (if required), a Task Order will be issued by the Contracting Officer reflecting the negotiated order price and payment terms as outlined in the statement of work or specifications, In any instance where there is failure to reach agreement on price, the Government reserves the right to withdraw the project and have it completed by other means or to use the order unilaterally based upon Offeror’s proposed coefficients on the Bidding Schedule.

2. EVALUATION METHOD AND PROCEDURES OF RFPs

2.1 When an RFP for a Task Order is issued, the Government intends to select the most advantageous, responsive, and responsible proposal resulting in the Best Value to the Government, price and other factors considered. It is anticipated that the majority of the Task Orders will be awarded based on competition, but the Government reserves the right to the award Task Orders as follows:

1. Price only

2. Price/Technical, to include schedule of work (Best Value)

3. Unilateral issuance of order using the Unit Price Book award coefficients, see paragraph 6. this Section

2.2 All MATOC Contractors will be given a fair opportunity to bid on Task Orders over $50,000.00 unless one of the following exceptions apply:

a. The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays;

b. Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized;

c. The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardess were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or

d. It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

2.3 The Contracting Officer, in making decisions in award of any individual Task Order, will consider factors such as past performance on earlier Task Orders under MATOC, quality, timeliness, or other factors that the Contracting Officer determines to be relevant in awarding a particular Task Order. Award factors will vary depending on the unique requirements for each Task Order; however, pricing will be a consideration.

2.4 When an RFP for a Task Order is issued with price as the only criteria, the low responsive Offeror will be awarded the Task Order. The Government reserves the right to request back-up documentation, engineering computations, and take offs to substantiate the Offeror’s Price Proposals. In the case of a unilateral award, the Government reserves the right to enter into negotiations.

2.5 When both technical and price are considered, award of a Task Order resulting from an RFP will be based on technical rating and price being considered. If the Government determines technical rating of greater importance to price or price to be of greater importance to technical rating or of equal importance to the technical rating, then the RFP will describe criteria to be utilized in evaluating the Task Order proposal.

2.6 The Government’s payment of the Lump Sum Amount of individual Task Orders shall constitute full compensation to the Contractor for (1) Furnishing all plant, labor equipment, appliances, and materials; and

(2) Performing all operations required to complete the work in conformity with the drawings, specifications and/or statement of work. The Contractor shall include in their proposal costs of all work required by drawings, specifications, and/or statement of work.

2.7 The requirement procedures for Defense Base Act (DBA) is located in the contract clause 52.000-4106 DEFENCE BASE ACT INSURANCE RATES – LIMITATION FIXED-PRICE (APR 2008). DBA shall be reimbursed per Task Order and shall be itemized as a Line Item on individual Task Orders. Cost for DBA is not considered to be part of the coefficients.

3. TASK ORDER AWARD

3.1 Whenever possible, award will be made without discussions. If discussions are held each MATOC Contractor may be requested to provide a final proposal revision. Task Order award will be made based on the basis for award as described in the Request for Proposal. The Government will notify Contractors when any Task Order (competed or otherwise awarded) is awarded under the MATOC procedures.

3.2 Task Orders will be issued on DD Form 1155. Orders will be placed via email. The Task Order becomes binding when the Contracting Officer signs the Order.

3.3 In accordance with FAR 16.505(a)(7), no protest under Subpart 33.1 is authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of an order under a Task Order Contract except for a protest on the grounds that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract. Notice to Proceed (NTP) will be issued separately after receipt of an acceptable Bank Letter of Guaranty, if required, and approved submittals as identified per Task Order or for Task Order awards over $10,000,000. Debriefs are authorized for task orders over $5,000,000 in accordance with FAR Part 16.505.

3.4 In accordance with FAR Part 16.505(b)(6), the Head of the Contracting Activity is required to appoint a task and delivery order ombudsman. If the Contractor believes it was not fairly considered for a particular Task Order, the Contractor may present the matter to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor may appeal the explanation or decision of the Contracting Officer to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Ombudsman at the following address: Headquarters, US Atlantic PARC., Directorate of Contracting, ATTN:

PARC., 60 Forsyth Street S.W., Room 10M35, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801. The ombudsman shall have the authority to:

a. Review complaints from contractors awarded multiple award contracts that they have not been afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for award of a particular task order.

b. After coordination with the Contracting Officer, and if he/she agrees with the Contractor, require that a

Contracting Officer take corrective action regarding the complaint.

4. EMERGENCY ORDERING PROCEDURES

a. On rare occasions when the development of problems during other than normal duty hours arise which may jeopardize the operation of the areas, the contractor will be required to respond to the Government needs within four (4) hours following telephone notification which may be made at any time in any twenty-four hour period. To accomplish this, the Contractor will provide to the COR a number at which he can be reached on a twenty-four hour basis.

b. The Contractor shall, within five (5) hours (unless the Contracting Officer determines that additional time is required) following such notification, provide a proposal. The time of commencement and completion shall be as specified by the Government.

c. The Proposal will be reviewed for completeness and any concerns or inconsistencies will be negotiated.

d. The Contractor will be verbally advised to proceed by the Contracting Officer or his authorized representative.

e. Written confirmation by the Government and the requirements will be prepared and submitted the following work day, if practicable.

f. A deliver order will then be issued.

5. SOLE SOURCE

When it is necessary to negotiate with one firm on a sole-source basis, the Contractor shall provide competitive quotes to establish a fair and reasonable price which shall be negotiated and incorporated into Task Orders.

6. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The Government will provide the contractor one copy of the construction drawings and statement of work (with pertinent supplemental specifications) upon issuance of each Task Order. All further reproduction shall be at the Contractor’s expense. The Government will provide these as hard copy or as electronic media, such as e-mail or

CD ROM. When directed, the Contractor shall complete Government drawings or provide design drawings for design/build projects, reference Technical Specifications.

7. CONTRACTOR TASK ORDER SUBMITTALS

The Government requires all documentation (i.e., certificates, licenses, resumes, etc.) submitted and made available for verification purposes shall be in the English language in accordance with Local Clause 52.000- 4043.

7.1 Contractor’s Project Manager

a. The Contractor shall appoint an English speaking individual to be the Contractor’s Project Manager. The

Contractor’s Project Manager shall have a minimum of five (5) years of construction management experience. Verification documentation will be made available to the Government upon request.

b. This individual shall conduct the overall management coordination on this contract and serve as the central point of contact with the Contracting Officer or his/her authorized representative for the performance of all work. An additional English speaking individual must be designated to act for the Project Manager, when work is being performed during the absence of the Project Manager.

c. The Contractor shall provide to the U.S. Government, within seven (7) days of award, the names, addresses, and home phone numbers of the Project Manager and the alternate Contractor personnel with authority to act for the Contractor if the Project Manager cannot be contacted. The Contractor shall also provide the Government, at the Pre-construction Conference, the names, address, and home phone numbers of the Project Manager’s supervisor.

d. When the Contractor wishes to change authorized Contractor personnel, a ten (10) workday advance written notice of change shall be provided to and approved by the Contracting Officer or his/her representative prior to any change. The Project Manager and/or any alternates designated to act for them, shall have full authority to contractually commit the Contractor for action on matters pertaining to administration of this contract. The Project Manager and his alternate shall be able to understand, speak, and write basic and technical English.

7.2 Correspondence: All correspondence shall be in the English language in accordance with Contract Clause FAR 52.215-1, Instruction to Offerors and “CORRESPONDENCE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE”, (Local Clause 52.000-4043).

7.3 Submittals, Shop Drawings, and As-Builts

a. The Contractor is responsible for…