B.08.03.2 Amendment 0002 20R0025 Latgale Admin Bldg.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to correct Section 00 22 13- Supplementary Instructions, EVALUATION OF OFFERORS, Sub Section C.

“EVALUATION APPROACH”, paragraph 2.”Factor 1: Technical Approach” Subparagraph (ii)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-May-2020

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 W912GB20R0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Apr-2020

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

12-May-2020

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:

W912GB20R0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 13 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION OF OFFERORS

Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below. Award will be made to an Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in communications or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without communications to Offerors, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph of the RFP Section 00 22 10.

The non-price factors are as follows:

1. NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A proposal receiving an unacceptable rating on one or more non-price factors will result in an overall unacceptable rating and be ineligible for award.

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Schedule Factor 3: Past Performance

2. PRICE FACTOR: The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 13.1.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS (NON-PRICE vs. PRICE): All non-price factors are of equal importance. All non-price factors, when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. 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 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 or will be executed prior to award 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.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a 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 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS section.

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.

2. Factor 1: Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to the design and construction of the Renovation of Latgale Regional Medical Center Daugavpils, Latvia to assess the Offeror’s perceived ability to implement all requirements of the SOW. Additional consideration may be afforded to an Offeror whose proposed approach:

(i) Demonstrates a reasonable process and rationale for the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner

(ii) Explains how the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with contract provisions as well as the ability and familiarity with conducting business and finances in Africa Latvia.(Amend2)

(iii) Provides an adequate plan for each of the items specified under RFP Section 00 21 00 for this factor.

(iv) Demonstrates innovative approaches to maximize personnel efficiency or provide cost savings through reduced travel and labor.

3. Factor 2: Schedule. The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to assess the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the project scope and schedule restrictions that must be considered (e.g., long lead items, site access, manpower availability, critical milestones, etc.). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the interrelated nature of activities in the proposed schedule, the Offeror's overall apparent capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the realism of the schedule.

The Government may use independent judgment concerning typical construction durations, as well as the Offeror’s proposed schedule logic and constraints.

4. Factor 3: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance records on other recent and relevant contracts to assess what level of expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the effort required by this RFP.

5. Factor 4: Price. Price will be considered in making the Government’s determination of which proposal received in response to this RFP presents the best value. The Government will perform price analysis on all proposals received in accordance with FAR 13.106-3 to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. Offerors are required to price for all items for the base and all options. Failure to submit a price and failure to complete all CLINs in Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration. From a price perspective, an offer’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together.

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 estimate.

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

(End of Summary of Changes)