B.08.03.8_Amendment_0008_FY19_Italy_DB_DBB_MATOC.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

FY19 ITALY DB DBB MATOC

The purpose of this Amendment is to update ATTACHMENT 1 - SPECIFICATIONS BINDER (replacement of Spec 00 74 17 in its entirety), ATTACHMENTS 11, 12, and 13 - SEED PROJECTS (Table of Contents Section 00 01 10 has been updated respectively); update Section 00 22 20, Volume 1, Factor 4; and Volume 2, Section C - Bank Letter of Assurance. See continued pages for complete details. Updates are show n in track changes. Insertions are highlighted in blue, bold font. Deletions are highlighted in red, strikethrough font. SEED Project changes are annotated in the RFP letters.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 19

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Jun-2019

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 W912GB19R0031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-2019

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

21-Jun-2019

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:

W912GB19R0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00 00 00 Procurement and Contracting Requirements SECTION 00 01 10 Table of Contents SECTION 00 10 00 Solicitation Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule SECTION 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors SECTION 00 22 00 Supplementary Instructions – Phase ONE of TWO SECTION 00 22 20 Supplementary Instructions – Phase TWO of TWO SECTION 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications - Clauses SECTION 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract – Contract Clauses SECTION 01 11 00 Summary of Work SECTION 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 - SPECIFICATIONS BINDER (replaced entirely via solicitation amendment 0004, Spec 00 74 17 replaced via amendment 0008) ATTACHMENT 2 - EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET (updated via solicitation amendment 0003)

ATTACHMENT 3 - EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW SHEET

ATTACHMENT 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 5 - BANK LETTER OF ASSURANCE TEMPLATE (updated via solicitation amendment 0002)

ATTACHMENT 6 - BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 7 - SAMPLE COMMITMENT LETTER

ATTACHMENT 8 - PREPROPOSAL CONFERENCE ATTENDEE INFO SHEET (updated via amendment 0005) ATTACHMENT 9 - AEF190-16F ACCESS REQUEST FORM (added via amendment 0005) ATTACHMENT 10 – EDERLE CASERNE MAP (added via amendment 0005) ATTACHMENT 11 – SEED PROJECT #1 TASK ORDER RFP PACKAGE (added via amendment 0006, revised via amendment 0008) ATTACHMENT 12 – SEED PROJECT #2 TASK ORDER RFP PACKAGE (added via amendment 0006, revised via amendment 0008) ATTACHMENT 13 – SEED PROJECT #3 TASK ORDER RFP PACKAGE (added via amendment 0006, revised via amendment 0008) ATTACHMENT 14 – PHASE II PRICE PROPOSAL FORM (added via amendment 0007)

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SOLICITATION PHASES

Section 00 22 10 Phase ONE of TWO – Design-Build Selection Procedures

In Phase ONE of the TWO phase design-build selection procedures, interested firms or joint venture entities (collectively referred to in the Solicitation as “Offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design-build and design-bid-build construction task orders resulting from a contract award under this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select a maximum of seven of the most highly qualified Phase ONE Offerors to compete for the design-build contract task order in Phase TWO. The most highly qualified Offerors selected to participate in Phase TWO will be notified by the Contracting Officer. In Phase TWO, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20.

A. PHASE ONE PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below.

Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase ONE and are of equal importance:

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Management Approach

1. VOLUME I

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one page cover letter, and any applicable fully-executed joint venture agreements and fully executed teaming agreements.

i. The cover letter shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

(4) Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

(5) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority.

ii. JV agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their JV agreement in English, signed by all parties of the JV.

(2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

(a) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

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

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

(3) 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.

(4) A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included.

iii. Other formal teaming agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their teaming agreement in English, signed by all parties of the team.

b. Section B - Factor 1, Experience.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors must submit no more than seven projects meeting the Factor 1 Experience definition for recent and relevant projects, defined as follows:

i. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team (see previous paragraph on teaming arrangements), the contract must have been awarded to the prime or the key sub-contractor.

ii. The contract was completed no earlier than six (6) calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or is at least 50% complete as of the closing date of this RFP.

iii. The contract is fundamentally for design-build or design-bid-build construction work.

iv. Projects with a minimum cost of $500,000.

NOTE: Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered similar to the requirements of this RFP rather than the umbrella contract.

Include a completed Experience Overview Sheet and a completed Experience Information Sheet for each project. Sample sheets are provided as RFP attachments. Experience Information sheets shall not exceed 4 pages per project.

If more than seven (7) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first seven (7) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s experience that demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under this Solicitation.

The SST will first assess whether the projects submitted each meet the definition of recent and relevant project for Factor 1, as defined above. Any projects that do not meet this definition will not be evaluated.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates depth and breadth of experience that involve the following (list is in no order of importance).

i. Projects that demonstrate experience with both project delivery methods (DB and DBB). Note:

An offeror that does not demonstrate at least one DB and one DBB project will be considered unacceptable for this factor.

ii. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Italy.

iii. Projects that demonstrate experience working in European Union countries.

iv. Projects that demonstrate experience working with the United States Government.

v. Projects demonstrating experience working in both new construction and major renovations of existing buildings.

vi. Projects demonstrating experience working in both horizontal and vertical construction.

vii. Projects demonstrating experience with multiple projects concurrently involving multiple trades.

viii. Projects demonstrating experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that the SST may assess weaknesses against experience examples that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project.

For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red Un-acceptable

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.

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be assessed according to the following guidelines:

NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

c. Section C - Factor 2, Past Performance.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall include completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form. If available, a completed record from the CPARS will be accepted for evaluation under this factor. An interim completed CPARs rating will be considered if a final record is not available. If a completed CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form, provided as an RFP Attachment. The completed PPQ shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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 no later than the closing date of this RFP.

Also include copies of performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the Offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine how likely it is that Offerors will be successful when performing task orders under the awarded contract. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, as well as other projects not submitted by the Offeror, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners the Offeror may have submitted. The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on any and all relevant past performance (as defined in Factor 1).

NOTE: The evaluation for this factor uses a much broader definition of what is relevant as compared to Factor 1 Experience. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ Form):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

The Government may verify information provided by the Offeror with any source available and has the right to contact points of contact other than those listed by the Offeror. 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, joint venture, 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. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or committed subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.304(a)(2)(iv)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

For the Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below.

i. Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

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.

ii. Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. In conducting the confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successfully perform the required effort.

d. Section D - Factor 3, Management Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan, which shall include at a minimum:

i. An organizational chart and narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s).

The chart and narrative must:

identify all offices involved in this contract identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location, including subcontractors and consultants include lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract clearly show the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and

Safety Organization, including all JV Partners and subcontractors, when applicable

ii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team. Discuss quality control lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure safety consistently across the team. Discuss safety lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iv. Discuss the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this RFP, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. Identify the significant aspects of the work that are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Prime Contractor and all key sub-contractors. Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor.

v. Discuss the Offeror’s Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record for types of work to be accomplished under this contract.

vi. Discuss knowledge of engineering and design in Italy to include coordination with host nation authorities and the ability to communicate in Italian and English.

Offerors should identify any additional and/or unique management advantages their proposal provides to the Government.

The Management Plan shall not exceed 20 pages.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Management Plan/Approach will be evaluated as one factor. This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this MATOC. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the US Government as spelled out in the documents and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements.

The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic.

The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the management plan:

i. Clearly defines the planned organization structure and presents a logical, viable approach to perform the work described in the RFP documents and achieve the desired quality.

ii. Delineates lines of authority appropriately including the relationship between the headquarters’ office and the site office, including all involved with the management of the contract including subcontractors and joint venture partners (where applicable) and identifies which personnel are identified to communicate with the Government.

iii. Comprehensively describes the duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and joint ventures.

iv. Describes management for performance of a potential task order including Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

quality control staffing (both management and labor to perform a typical design and construction project) obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors.

v. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of engineering and design in Italy to include coordination with host nation authorities.

vi. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Italy and the ability to meet the requirements along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in Italian and English.

For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be

Rating monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the

2. VOLUME II – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

a. Section A - Cover Letter. Offerors shall submit a cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

i. The Solicitation number.

ii. The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

iii. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

iv. Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to

v. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority.

b. Section B – Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments). Offerors shall submit a completed

Standard Form (SF) 1442 using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this Solicitation. If applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each Solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments.

c. Section C – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the following:

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

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

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

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

iv. Restricted Plan Holders List (RPHL) Information. Offerors shall submit documentation to demonstrate compliance with the following solicitation clauses. Offerors that have already submitted all this documentation during the presolicitation periond do NOT need to resubmit this information. Offerors that did NOT submit this information already must include it in their Phase ONE proposal in order to be considered for award.

(1) 52.000-4090 – S.O.A.s—Qualification of Firms Pursuant to Italian Decree DPR 00/34

(Decreto Del Presidente Della Republica, January 25, 2000, No. 34.) – NOTE: Societa’ Organismo Di ttestazione (SOA) certifications required for this solicitation include categories OG 1 (class IV), OG 3 (class III), OG 6 (class II), OG 11 (class II), OG 12 (Class II).

(2) 52.000-4091 – Compliance with Italian Decree DPR 554/99, as amended by Article 2 of

DPR 412/00 (2009)

(3) 52.225-4002 - Anti Mafia Law

d. Section D – Financial Information. Offerors shall submit financial information to demonstrate they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. For example, past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and/or bank name, number and POC, etc.

B. PHASE ONE EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SST.

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

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

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably 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.

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

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

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

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 “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.).

The proposal must also include an agreement that has been executed between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. NOTE: For the purposes of evaluation under this RFP, if one of the parties in a teaming arrangement 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 entire teaming arrangement.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a fully executed legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided in the section 00 21 00.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g., if an Offeror proposes to utilize a

“key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. The SST will evaluate the non-price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE. To receive consideration for PHASE TWO, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase ONE submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase ONE. However, the Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase TWO. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit phase TWO proposals.

Section 00 22 20 Phase TWO of TWO – Design-Build Selection Procedures

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

During Phase TWO evaluations, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. Award will be made to a target of five Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described herein. Award may be made to fewer than or greater than five Offerors at the Government’s discretion.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

During Phase TWO evaluations, no revisions to Phase ONE proposals will be allowed, unless the Contracting Officer decides it is in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions..

B. PHASE TWO PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government SST will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase TWO:

Factor 4: Technical Approach – Seed Projects Factor 5: Price – Seed Projects

Phase ONE evaluation ratings will continue into Phase TWO. All non-price factors (Factors 1-4) are of equal importance; and all non-price factors (Factors 1-4), when combined are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 5).

1. PHASE TWO, VOLUME I

a. Section A – Factor 4, Technical Approach– Seed Projects

The Offeror shall provide a Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents for each of the SEED Projects (one narrative and one schedule for each SEED project), plus the SOA certs and Anti-Mafia documents as specified in the SEED project Task Order RFP letters. There is no page limit for the narrative per SEED project, however, in total, all three SEED project narratives shall not exceed 15 pages. The Schedules, conceptual drawings, and/or layouts shall be exluded from the page count. SOA certifications and Anti- Mafia documents shall also be excluded from the page count. The Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete projects to meet the required contract completion period stated on the schedule.

Each schedule shall be prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in both native XER format and also a PDF copy, and shall be specifically-tailored to the SEED projects. Each schedule shall include all of the major portions of work, including submittals, reviews and approval periods. Each schedule shall address long lead-time items and shall take into consideration all major portions of work. For the purposes of this section only, the Offeror shall use the date of 30 November 2019 for Notice to Proceed (NTP) and should prepare the schedule assuming that all base line items and options will be awarded on that date.

The written Technical Approach Narrative shall include all of the following:

a. A description of the Offeror’s plan for executing the work from start to finish, which meets the contractual milestone dates and performance requirements defined in Section 01 10 1000 Summary of Work (SEED Projects).

b. A description of activities along the two most critical paths of the schedule explaining how durations were determined and logic developed.

c. A description of any construction work to be performed during the late fall, winter, and early spring, with special consideration being given to cold an inclement weather conditions that may be encountered during this time period and any special measures that the Offeror has considered in their proposal.

d. Identification of the 5 (five) main areas of risk identified by the Offeror in their schedule, along with the measures they have incorporated to mitigate the risk.

e. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

Offerors shall utilize the following assumptions when developing SEED project Task Order technical approach narratives and schedules:

- SEED project 1 (DC-19-0062).

o Options. Offerors shall assume that for Options 1-4 the full replacement alternatives will be selected to be awarded with the base and Options 5-15 will be awarded on the last day of the option period (180 days after NTP). The Offeror shall also assume that for Options 5-8 the new EIFS alternatives will be selected.

o Occupancy during construction. The entire facilities will be turned over to the DB Contactor and no personnel will occupy the facilities during construction.

o Furniture. When the facilities are turned over to the DB Contractor no furniture will be in the facilities.

- SEED Project 2 (DC-19-0056).

o Options. N/A. No repetition is listed within the bid schedule.

o Occupancy during construction. Building 2 will be completely turned over. Building 1 floor 2 will be completely turned over. Floor 1 will require access to the area shown and described in the scope of work. Ground floor will be required to remain fully functional.

Contractor is responsible for determining phases which best accommodates these needs.

o Furniture. When the facilities are turned over to the DB Contractor no furniture will be in the facilities.

- SEED project 3 (DC-19-0066).

o Options. Offerors shall assume that all Options 1-19 will be awarded on the last day of the option period (180 days after NTP). The Offeror shall also assume that for Options 5-8, the new EIFS alternatives will be selected.

o Occupancy during construction. the entire facilities will be turned over to the DB Contactor and no personnel occupies the facilities.

o Furniture. There is no furniture in any of the facilities.

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor for all SEED projects.

The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule for each SEED project will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the Solicitation requirements. In assessing reasonableness, the Government will take into account how well the proposed summary schedule for each SEED project supports the contract duration as compared with the Solicitation requirements and how well it supports and correlates to the work plan narrative.

Further, the Offeror’ schedules must specifically demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the milestones specified in the price schedule and specification sections for each SEED project. In addition, the Government may use independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The length of the schedule must be equal to the contract duration for each SEED project.

The Government will evaluate the schedules to assess conformance with the Solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scopes, and restrictions, which must be considered in the schedules (e.g., long lead items, critical milestones, logic of proposed phasing, etc.). The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project for each SEED within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

The Government reserves the right to request proof of ownership or binding commitments from equipment suppliers to provide any equipment identified prior to awarding a contract.

For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red Un-acceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be

Rating monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the

2. PHASE TWO, VOLUME II

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one page cover letter, and any applicable fully-executed joint venture agreements and fully executed teaming agreements.

i. The cover letter shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation to include the seed projects proposals and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

(4) Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to

(5) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority.

ii. JV agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their JV agreement in English, signed by all parties of the JV.

(2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

(a) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

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

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

(3) 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…