B.08.03 W912GB20R0006 Amendment 0003.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

FY20 TURKEY DESIGN-BUILD (DB)/ DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB) CONSTRUCTION MATOC

The purpose of Amendment 0003 is to update Section 00 22 10, section B - Factor 1, Experience / Past Performance Evaluation Criteria for consistency w ith changes in Amendment 0002 and update Section 00 22 20, section C, paragraph ii, BLG, to provide additional clarif ication.

Please see continuation pages for further details. Tracked changes are provided.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Dec-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 W912GB20R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Nov-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

19-Dec-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:

W912GB20R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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 JV 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. Offerors will be notified if they have or have not been selected to participate in Phase TWO 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 Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2:

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

1. VOLUME I

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully-executed JV 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 JV parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

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

(c) The structure of the JV and decision-ranking responsibilities of the JV parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

(d) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the JV to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the

JV.

(e) Identification of party maintaining the JV bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the JV.

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

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the JV.

(3) Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual JV parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the

JV.

(4) A statement in the agreement that each member of the JV will be jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

(5) A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “JVs” 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 / Past Performance.

1. EXPERIENCE: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as this solicitation 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 below. If projects do not address the minimum requirements below, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may affect the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Then, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality of performance on the evaluated projects and may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance to determine a confidence assessment rating.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors must submit no more than five (5) projects and a minimum of two (2) meeting the following definition for recent and relevant projects:

i. The project was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a JV, the project 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, the project must have been awarded to the prime or the key sub-contractor.

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

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

iv. Projects with a minimum cost of $200,000.00.

v. All experiences should be submitted from construction contracts and not Architecture-Engineer contracts

NOTE: Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity 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 base 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 four (4) pages per project.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first five

(5) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

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 four (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 and/or award fee determinations. 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 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. If projects do not address the minimum requirements below, the proposal will still be evaluated; however, it may affect the Government's expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effortdemonstrate a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience that involve the following:

i. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Turkey.

ii. Projects that demonstrate experience working with the United States Government, more consideration will be given for experience working with the Department of Defense.

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

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

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

vi. 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 demonstrate a significant lack of experience one or more of the criteria listed above, 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.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE: The SST will then 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. Please note the Government reserves the right to review all recent past performance records available to make a confidence determination to include other projects not submitted by the Offeror. The Government also reserves the right to review past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners the Offeror may have submitted. 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, 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 (FAPTWOS), 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 15.3054(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.

During the best value tradeoff process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

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.

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.

c. Section D - Factor 2, 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 Turkey to include coordination with local authorities and the ability to communicate in 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 JV 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 JVs.

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 Turkey to include coordination with host nation authorities.

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

3. VOLUME TWO – 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 negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

v. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by

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.

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.” (FAPTWOS).

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. JVs. 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. Affiliates. In the case of an Offeror’s affiliates, experience and/or past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the experience and/or past performance of any affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

c. 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 (5) 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 (5) 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 3: Technical Approach – Seed or Sample Project Factor 4: Price - Binding labor rates for key personnel and common positions and common tasks

(if feasible) with coefficients for specified regions and/or for specialized work and Relevant Seed or Sample Project.

Phase ONE evaluation ratings will continue into Phase TWO. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

Factor 1 is approximately equal to Factor 3. All non-price factors (Factor 1-3), when combined are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4).

1. PHASE TWO, VOLUME I

a. Section A – Factor 3, Technical Approach – Seed or Sample Project

The Offeror shall provide a Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents for the SEED or Sample Project (one

(1) narrative for Technical and one (1) narrative for Schedule). 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. The page limitation is 15 pages. The schedules, conceptual drawings, and/or layouts shall be excluded from the page count.

Each schedule shall be prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in native XER format and shall be specifically-tailored to the SEED or Sample project. 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 *To Be Determined* 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 00 Summary of Work (SEED or Sample Project).

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.).

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor for the SEED or Sample project. The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule for the SEED or Sample 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 the SEED or Sample 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 the SEED or Sample 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 the SEED or Sample project.

The Government will evaluate the schedules to assess conformance with the Solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scope, and restrictions, which must be considered in the schedule (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 the SEED or Sample 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 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.

2. PHASE TWO, VOLUME TWO

a. Section A – Executive Summary.

i. Offerors shall submit a one (1) page cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation to include the seed or sample task order project proposal and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered (not required for a sample project).

(3) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by

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 – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG):

i. BLA issued for the value of $1,000,000.00. See format provided as RFP attachment. Note to Offerors: The BLA for the MATOC will suffice for the SEED or Sample Task Order BLA requirements. Upon receipt of Task Order award, a BLG shall be furnished by the Task Order Awardee.

ii. BLG: Within SEVEN (7) calendar days after the date of contract task order award, the

Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer a Bank Letter of Guaranty for the performance of the work in the amount of *% (to be determined at the task order level) of the anticipated maximum contract value, or lesser amount, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, conforming to the format of the sample letter. Failure to furnish the Bank Letter of Guaranty may be deemed a breach of contract. The Bank Letter of Guaranty will be dated as of the contract award date or as soon thereafter as possible. The Bank Letter of Guaranty shall state that it will continue in effect without change in amount or terms until the work has been finally inspected and accepted by the Government, and that thereafter it will continue in effect until expiration of any applicable warranty periods or extensions thereof in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the contract price. The Bank Letter of Guaranty shall also state that the bank agrees and consents that the contract may be modified by change order or supplemental agreement without affecting the validity of the Bank Letter of Guaranty. The Contracting Officer may require and the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer an increase in the amount of the Bank Letter of Guaranty because of increases to the contract value. The authorization to issue "Notice to Proceed" will not be effected until after approval and acceptance by the Contracting Officer of the Bank Letter of Guaranty. The Bank Letter of Guaranty shall be interpreted in accordance with U.S. law and is subject to the Choice of Law and Immunity for Legal Process clauses in the solicitation.

d. Section D – 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.

e. Section E – Factor 4, Price – SEED or Sample Project

The Offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs). An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal for each of the seed projects may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate Contract Line Items (CLIN) prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are reminded, in accordance with FAR 52.215-20, the Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis as required to determine a price fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. The Government will evaluate price for the base awards based on a Fixed Price Schedule to be completed by the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposed fixed prices shall not be exceeded on any future task order proposals; however, Offerors may always propose lower prices if appropriate for any task order. In the event a sample project is utilized in the RFP, the evaluation of price for the base award will also include the proposed “total price” for that sample. In the event a Seed task order is used in Phase TWO, the evaluation of price for that Seed award will be separately assessed from the base award and will be based on the “total price. “Total price” consists of the base bid items, and all (if applicable) option bid items (all CLINs total). The Government intends to evaluate all options on the Seed task order (if applicable) and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of any options will not obligate the Government to exercise those option(s). This provision is applicable for both the base contract options and any Seed task order option[s] and all future task order options (if applicable0.

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

C. SEED TASK ORDER / MINIMUM GUARANTEE

The Government intends to award the seed project to one of the successful MATOC awardees at the same time as the MATOC award unless a sample project is provided. In the event an actual seed task order is provided for the evaluation, the basis for award for the seed task order will be best value tradeoff and will use the same non-price evaluation criteria and relative importance as the MATOC award decision. The other MATOC selected Offerors will receive the minimum guarantee as a task order at the time as MATOC award. Should the Government be unable to award the seed project, the Government guarantees an award in the amount of $3,000.00 to each successful Offeror upon award of the MATOCs. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract, including option years.

Upon the award of a subsequent task order, the minimum guarantee will be deobligated. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any Offeror proposing on this Solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order for the seed project, might not result from this Solicitation.

D.…