B.08.02 W912GB21R0002-Amnd 0002.pdf

W912GB21R0002

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 incorporate the follow ing:

1. Provide the Pre-Proposal Conference Slides - RO MATOC PPC Slide Deck 29OCT (FINAL)

2. Provide the Pre-Proposal Conference Roster - FY21 Romania MATOC PPC ROSTER (BY COMPANY NAME)

3. Attch 2 - Past ExpInfoSheet (revised)

4. Attch 3 - Past ExpOverview Sheet (revised)

5. Revised Section 00 22 10 (revisions in high-light)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Oct-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 W912GB21R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-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, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

30-Oct-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:

X 1

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

SELECTION PROCEDURES-AMND 0002

Section 00 22 10 (revised Amnd 0002) One-Step Design-Bid-Build Selection Procedures

Interested firms or JV entities (collectively referred to in the Solicitation as “Offerors” shall submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute 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 this Solicitation will result in a target of five (5) awardees.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

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 “Neutral Confidence” and 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.

B. 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.

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule (for Seed Project)

Factor 4: Price – (Seed Project)

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), non- price factors, Factor 1 – Past Performance, Factor 2- Management Approach and Factor 3 – Technical Approach, are approximately equal in importance; and, all non- price factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4).

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 (also see C. EVALUATION

APPROACH, 2. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS) 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, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) projects. The Government may consider projects more relevant if they consist of all of the following criteria (listed in no particular order); Projects completed more than six (6) years before the proposal due date and/or not meeting all of these criteria may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the Offeror’s overall rating:

i. 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.

ii. The project is for design-bid-build or design-build construction work. At least one design-bid-build project shall be submitted. (Note:

Projects should be submitted from construction contracts or design-build construction contracts, not Architect-Engineer contracts.)

iii. The project had a minimum cost of $5,000,000.00.

iv. The project was performed in the European Union/United Kingdom (with more consideration given for projects in Romania).

If the Offeror wants the Government to consider a Teaming Arrangement for its past performance; it shall identify all such entities in its Factor 1 proposal and provide at least one qualifying project for each such entity. Please note: the preferred projects should reflect the same or significantly similar scope of work that will be performed by that entity under this Contract. Also, reliance on a Teaming Arrangement for past performance does not relieve the Offeror of its obligation to supply at least two qualifying projects to demonstrate its own past performance on the portions of the contract it will perform or manage.

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 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 five (5) 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.

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 Government will evaluate the recent, relevant performance of the prime offeror and team members and assign one confidence rating for this factor.

The Government will evaluate each demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation. Then, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality of performance to determine a confidence assessment rating.

Projects that are considered to be more relevant will have more influence on the past performance confidence rating.

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.

a. Recency. Projects submitted should be completed within six years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) that are for similar work as that required in this solicitation. Projects submitted that are beyond six years may be considered, but may be considered less relevant.

b. Relevancy. Firm-fixed-priced contracts that demonstrated the relevant characteristics below will be considered more relevant than cost reimbursement and time and materials type contracts. NOTE: Projects submitted that do not have one or more of the qualities considered most relevant below will be considered, but the offeror may receive a lower relevancy rating, contributing to a lower confidence rating for this factor.

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.

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant criteria as possible. For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience in the following:

i. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Romania will be considered more relevant.

ii. Projects that demonstrate experience working with the United States

Government, projects for the U.S. Department of Defense will be considered most relevant.

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

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

v. Projects demonstrating experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors, team members and/or the proposed JV Partners.

vi. Projects demonstrating experience working on military base airfields or commercial airfields, projects on military air bases will be considered more relevant.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that the SST may assess weaknesses against experience examples that demonstrate 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE: 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. 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 Team Members, including 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 (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 15.305(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.

Once evaluation of all of the above past performance information is completed, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below for Factor 1:

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.

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.

c. Section C - Factor 2, Management Approach.

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

i. One (1) organizational chart and a 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 position(s) to communicate with the U.S. government 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 knowledge of engineering, design and construction, and permitting requirements in Romania to include coordination with local authorities.

vi. Ability to communicate in Romanian and English.

vii. Discuss the Offeror’s plan to manage multiple task orders concurrently at multiple locations in Romania.

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

The Management Approach shall not exceed 20 pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 20 pages.

The Management 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 Approach will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution.

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 potential task orders simultaneously 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, design and construction, and permitting requirements in Romania to include coordination with host nation authorities.

vi. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Romania 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 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.

d. Section D - Factor 3, Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule – Seed Project

Seed Project Description – Aircraft Parking Apron:

The work includes the construction of an aircraft parking apron consisting of concrete pavement and asphalt shoulders, designed for Tactical Fighter Aircraft (TFA) and two ladder taxiways. The aircraft parking apron will include the installation of jet blast deflectors, airfield lighting, airfield markings and signage, a new storm water collection system, including an underground storage basin, and other items incidental to the work. The ladder taxiways will include concrete pavement and asphalt shoulders, including the installation of airfield lighting, airfield markings and signage, and a new storm water collection system.

The Offeror should provide a plan describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents. The plan should consist of

(1) a Technical Approach Narrative and (2) Network Schedule. For the purposes of this factor only, the Offeror shall use the date of 28 April 2021 for Notice to Proceed (NTP) and prepare the schedule assuming that all base line items and options will be awarded on that date.

The Technical Approach Narrative should include:

i. Describe the offerors overall plan for executing the work from NTP to final completion.

The plan should specifically address:

All work to be performed during winter months (all years of the contract). Include a description of any special measures which the offeror intends to take to mitigate the impacts of cold and inclement weather conditions which may be encountered during the winter time period.

The offerors plan for executing construction of the Aircraft Parking Apron.

ii. Identify long lead-time items and describe steps to be taken to ensure they will be available on site timely.

iii. Identification of large equipment (including any proposed construction cranes, and batch plants) to be used to perform the work along with the source (self-owned, subcontractor, etc.).

iv. Identification of the 5 (five) main risks identified by the offeror in their schedule, along with mitigation measures.

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

vi. Identify constraints of working near/on an active airfield runway and how to mitigate those constraints.

vii. Provide other project examples demonstrating experience working on airfield pavements, railways/railheads/railroad extensions, and fuel storage facilities.

The Technical Approach Narrative shall not exceed 30 pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 30 pages.

The Network Schedule must include both a Schedule and a Schedule Narrative consisting of the following:

i. A schedule prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in native XER format specifically-tailored to the project contemplated by the solicitation. The schedule shall include all of the major portions of work, including submittals, reviews and approval periods.

ii. A description of activities along the critical path of the schedule and all activities with less than one week of float with their relation to the critical path.

Explanation of how durations were determined and logic developed.

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor for the SEED project. The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule for the SEED project will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the Solicitation requirements. As part of the evaluation, the Government will assess:

i. Whether and to what extent the narrative and schedule correlate and support one another

ii. How well the proposed schedule meets the contractual milestone dates and performance requirements defined in Specification Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work (for the Aircraft Parking Apron Seed Project)

iii. The strength of understanding of the project scope, and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., durations of activities, long lead items, critical milestones, logic of proposed phasing, etc.).

iv. The realism of the schedule

The Government may use independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations.

Full compliance with Specification Section 01 32 01 Project Schedule (NAU) is not required, however the Government will evaluate the network schedule (Primavera Schedule) to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements, including:

i. Compliance with all contract milestones and completion dates

ii. All constraints in the network schedule must be explicitly identified and explained

iii. Project calendars must comply with the requirements of Section 01 32 01

NOTE: Do NOT include any cost or pricing information in the Network Schedule.

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 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 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. VOLUME TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE

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 project task order proposal and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

(3) 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 – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA),Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG), Bonds, Insurance and other Sureties and Financial Information:

i. A BLA issued by a bank, insurance company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable by the Contracting Officer for the value of $10,000,000.00, containing the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP attachment section shall be submitted with the proposal. Please note that these terms and conditions shall not be changed, or supplemented with other terms. Also note that the BLA requires the bank to provide a Bank Letter of Guaranty with the same terms and conditions as the BLG template attachment to this RFP. As an alternative to the above, the Offeror may submit a Bid Bond or other bid guarantee in the amount of $25,000,000.00 and in accordance with FAR 52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996). See example format provided as RFP attachment.

Note to Offerors: The BLA for the MATOC will suffice for the SEED project 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 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 task order 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 ten percent (10%) 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 Contract and no terms may be changed or added to those on the RFP attachment.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BID BOND OR LETTER OF ASSURANCE

AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE WILL DETERMINE YOUR PROPOSAL TO

BE INCOMPLETE AND NOT EVALUATED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A

PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND OR A BLG AS PRESCRIBED

ABOVE MAY BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT.

HOWEVER, THE OFFEROR MAY SUBMIT COMPLETE AND

PROPERLY EXECUTED ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ANY OF THE

ABOVE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY ARE DUE IF

ORIGINALS CANNOT BE OBTAINED DUE TO COVID-19 VIRUS

RESTRICTIONS, PROVIDING THAT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

ARE FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS THEY ARE

AVAILABLE.

iii. 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, phone number and POC, etc.

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 – Price – Seed Project

The Offeror is required to submit a complete the Seed Project Price Proposal Form (Attachment 9 – Seed Project Proce Schedule) that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs). An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal for the seed project 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.

The evaluation of price for the Seed Project 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 Project 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 Project task order option[s] and all future task order options (if applicable).

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. 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. The Offeror may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of a JV member, a team member, a subcontractor, or an affiliate (collectively referred to in this RFP as “Team Members” if that experience/past performance relates to the services described for that party in the team arrangement agreement or the letter of commitment. Consistent with FAR 9.104-4 the Government also may consider the responsibility of such entities or persons when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. In the event that the Offeror is awarded the resultant contract, there can be no substitution of any proposed team member, subcontractor, or key personnel identified in a teaming agreement or letter of commitment without prior written approval of the contracting officer.

Approval or disapproval of a substitute entity or person is a matter within the sole discretion of the contracting officer, who will consider factors such as whether the proposed substitute appears to be equally qualified and whether the substitution is the best interests of the Government and project execution. In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as he/she deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion. Further details on requirements related to Team Arrangements are provided in the section 00 21 00.

a. Teaming Agreements. For a teaming agreement 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. Further details on the requirements for a JV agreement are provided in section 00 21 00.

b. 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 on the requirements for a JV agreement are provided in section 00 21 00. Offerors shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement if the Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of the Joint Venture Partners. This shall be provided as part of the proposal in Factor 1 Past Performance. Clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship on any ongoing or previous projects.

c. Key Subcontractor Commitment Letters. For a prime-subcontractor arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must have a commitment letter signed by both the prime and the subcontractor that includes the substantive portions of the sample provided in Attachment 7. The proposal must also 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.

d. Affiliates. The term “affiliate” is defined in FAR 2.101. For an affiliate’s past experience/past performance to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must demonstrate 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.

The SST will evaluate the non-price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to receive awards. To receive an award, a confidence rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” and an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the RFP requirements. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to receive awards.

The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified Offerors to receive MATOC awards.

D. 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. 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.