RO MATOC PPC Slide Deck 29OCT (FINAL).pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

FY21 ROMANIA MATOC

W912GB21R0002

Presented by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District 29 October 2020

Virtual Event

1. Mute phone / microphone when not speaking

2. Turn off webcam

3. Use the “raise your hand” feature if you want to speak

4. Use the “chat” feature to ask questions to the group

5. Avoid sidebar discussion

6. No technical discussion will be held in this forum

GROUND RULES AND PROCEDURES

USACE TEAM INTRODUCTIONS

Jennifer Aldridge Program Manager, Base Contracts

Leslie Reed Assistant Counsel

Robin Prince Contracting Officer

Lequita Byrd-Craig Contract Specialist

Brit Streebin A/E Black & Veatch Project Manager

AGENDA

Welcome / Introductory Remarks About the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Europe District USACE Program in Romania Doing Business with the USACE: Part 1 Systems and Registrations

Doing Business with the USACE: Part 2 Source Selection

FY21 Romania MATOC Solicitation U.S. Procurement Law & Overseas Contracting MATOC Seed Project – Aircraft Parking Apron

Q&A Session / Closing Remarks

Information Provided During the Pre-proposal Conference

Any remarks or explanations provided during this presentation today are for general information and will not change the terms and conditions of any resultant solicitation or subsequent contract.

DISCLAIMER

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mission: USACE provides vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure our Nation, energize the economy, and reduce risks of disasters.

USACE is globally engaged and regionally aligned

NAU Commander: Colonel Patrick Dagon, P.E.

Headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany Six broad portfolios: Enduring Base Support, Forward Basing and Posture, Medical Facilities, School Facilities, Defense Security Cooperation, and Missile Defense.

Europe District AOR (1 of 2) – MILCON Workload

BEL Belgium BGR Bulgaria CZE Czech Republic DNK Denmark EST Estonia DEU Germany HUN Hungary ITA Italy LVA Latvia LTU Lithuania LUX Luxembourg NLD Netherlands NOR Norway POL Poland ROU Romania SVN Slovakia TUR Turkey

Europe District MILCON projects (past, present, and future) are located in 16 countries throughout the EUCOM AOR:

Europe District AOR (2 of 2) – Non-MILCON Workload

ALB Albania ARM Armenia AZE Azerbaijan GEO Georgia HVR Croatia ISR Israel XKX Kosovo MKD North Macedonia SRB Serbia UKR Ukraine

EUCOM Non-MILCON Workload (not already included in MILCON)

AFRICOM

Non-MILCON

Workload BEN Benin BFA Burkina Fasso CMR Cameroon TCD Chad DJI Djibuti

GAB Gabon GHA Ghana KEN Kenya LSO Lesotho MWI Malawi MOZ Mozambique NER Niger NGA Nigeria STP Sao Tome SEN Senegal SLE Sierra Leone ZAF South Africa SWZ Swaziland TGO Togo TUN Tuniaia

Central Area Office – Sembach, Germany Ramstein AFB RO

Spangdahlem AFB PO Kaiserslautern RO

Germersheim PO* Baumholder RO

BENELUX RO - Mons, Belgium Brunssum PO Netherlands Brussels PO – Brussels Dülmen PO - Germany

Hessen Area Office –Wiesbaden, Germany Wiesbaden RO

CIC PO

Grafenwoehr RO

Ansbach PO Hohenfels PO Garmish PO

Stuttgart RO

District HQ – Wiesbaden Special Projects RO

(AFRICOM/EUCOM)

Expeditionary Area Office*

ROBMC (Hospital) Area Office*

Poland MD Area Office (Redzikowo, Poland)

•500+ Employees •25% Local Nationals •More than 30 field offices in 14 countries

Israel Area Office Central RO (Herzliya) South RO (Beer sheva) Infantry Base RO*

RO: Resident Office PO: Project Office *Planned Office

Northern Europe Area Office (Poznan, Poland) Powidz RO – Powidz, Poland Riga RO – Riga, Latvia

Tallinn PO – Tallinn, Estonia Latvia/Lithuania PO – Riga, Norway

PO – Oslo, Norway*

Southern Europe Area Office (Vicenza, Italy) Romania RO – Mihail Kogalnicheanu (MK)

Campia Turzii PO – Romania* Romania MD PO – Deveselu, Romania NSTA PO – Bulgaria

Mediterranean RO – Vicenza, Italy Aviano PO Livorno PO TUSEG – Incirlik AB, Turkey Caucasus PO – Tbilisi, Georgia

Hungary RO – Budapest*

EUROPE DISTRICT OFFICES

USACE PROGRAM IN

ROMANIA

Completed USACE Europe District-managed Forward Operating Site project near MK Air Base, Romania

UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES

DBB Multiple Award Task Order Contract

(MATOC):

• Area: Romania

• Capacity (shared): $249.9M

• Ordering Period: 5 years

• Task Order Range: $50K to $50M

• Design-Bid-Build Projects ONLY

• Typical Projects: new construction of facilities, airfield improvements and upgrades, building renovations, roof replacements, fire alarm system repair, utilities repair, new hardstand construction or upgrades, etc.

Potential Projects:

• FY21 Aircraft Parking Apron (Seed Project), Campia Turzii, $10M - $25M

• FY21 Dangerous Cargo Pad, Campia Turzii, $10M - $25M

• FY21 POL Increase Capacity, Campia Turzii, $25M - $100M

• FY21-26 Various O&M Projects, throughout

Romania

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS: PART 1

• General Information: Registrations & ID Numbers

• DUNS Number

• Cage / NCAGE Code

• SAM Registration

OVERVIEW

REGISTRATIONS & IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

System Description Website General Timeline

DUNS Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS):

Unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of your business http://www.dnb.com 24-48 hours

CAGE /

NCAGE

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code http://www.dlis.dla.mil/ cage_welcome.asp https://eportal.nspa.na to.int/AC135Public/def ault.aspx

7-11 business days

SAM System for Award Management (SAM) is a registration database required for all US Federal Government Contracts and where you will find opportunities.

https://www.sam.beta.

gov/

2 weeks to go active

What is a DUNS Number? It’s a unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of your business.

How does my firm obtain a DUNS number? Go to http://www.dnb.com to obtain a DUNS number at no cost.

https://www.dnb.com/duns-number/get-a-duns.html

DUNS NUMBER

The CAGE or NCAGE code is a required piece of data for registering in the System for Award Management (SAM).

• What is a CAGE Code? The Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code is a unique identifier assigned to suppliers to various government or defense agencies, as well as to government agencies themselves and also various organizations.

• How does your company obtain a CAGE Code? If you are a vendor located inside the United States, one can be obtained by visiting: https://cage.dla.mil/

• What is an NCAGE Code? The NATO Codification System (NCS) was established in 1954. In order to differentiate between the U.S. and NATO systems, CAGE was referred to as NATO COMMERCIAL and GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY CODE (NCAGE) in the NCS community.

• How does your company obtain an NCAGE Code? If you are a vendor located outside the United States, one can be obtained by visiting https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/default.aspx

CAGE AND NCAGE CODE

ROMANIA

Romanian companies must apply for an NCAGE through the Romanian Ministry of Defense.

Email: ncage@roncb.ro POC: Mihaela Popescu

Non-Romanian companies can apply for an NCAGE number through the NATO Support Agency (NSPA):

https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/scage/CageList.aspx

NCAGE POINT OF CONTACT

• Provisions/clauses require all contractors to register and maintain an active SAM entity registration in order to be eligible for contract awards, as prescribed by the regulation at FAR Subpart 4.11.

Solicitations Provision: FAR 52.204-7 SAM or FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items Contract Clause: FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance or 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions--

Commercial Items.

• Contractors are required to update SAM registration ANNUALLY.

• In order to eligible for the contract award resulting from a solicitation, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

SAM REGISTRATION

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS: PART 2

• Source Selection Process, Team Roles and Responsibilities

• Understanding the Solicitation

• Preparing your Proposal

• Exchanges with Offerors & Debriefings

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

PART 2: OVERVIEW

Develop Requirement & Conduct Market Research Develop Acquisition Strategy/Plan Government Issues Solicitation (via beta.sam)

Pre-proposal conferences/Site Visits will be held for large or complex procurements

Offerors submit questions and Government may amend solicitation Contractors submit Proposals Government Evaluates Proposals Award on Initial Offers (Decision Point) Establish Competitive Range Conduct “meaningful” Discussions Request & Receive Final Proposal Revisions Evaluate Final Proposals & Make Source Selection Decision Contract Award Debriefings

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW

Proposal Material Received

Individual Evaluations Caucus SSA

Briefing Award Decision

Discussions*Final Proposal Revisions

Contract Award

Debriefings

*If Required

Solicitation Issued

Single Phase Evaluation

Comments Strengths Weaknesses Merit & Confidence

Ratings

Consensus Strengths Weaknesses Merit & Confidence

Ratings

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

– Often the Contracting Officer (KO)

– Ensures process conducted properly

– Ensures Source Selection Plan and Evaluation Criteria are consistent with solicitation

– Selects Best Value Offer

Source Selection Evaluation Board

– Conduct comprehensive review & evaluation of proposals against solicitation requirements and evaluation criteria and assign a rating

– Document deficiencies and basis of evaluation

– Identify necessary items for discussion

– Provide information to KO supporting debriefings of unsuccessful

Offerors

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Source Selection Authority

(SSA)

Source Selection

Evaluation Board (SSEB)

Technical Evaluation

Team

Cost/Price Evaluation

Team

Solicitation and Contract Standard Forms (SFs)

• Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award

• Standard Form 1449, Solicitation / Contract / Order for Commercial Items

• Standard Form 1442, Solicitation / Contract

• Standard Form 18, Request for Quotation

• Standard Form 26, Award / Contract

Request for Proposal (RFP): This is a negotiated contract where further discussion may take place after the proposal is submitted. The offeror may have the opportunity to change pricing or technical requirements. A SF 33 or SF 1442 must be signed and submitted. Once the government agency signs the appropriate form, the contract becomes binding. (Offer & Acceptance)

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS - SECTION 00 10 00

MAGNITUDES of CONSTRUCTION

The magnitudes are provided in FAR 36.204 and DFARS 236.204

Typical Language in the Solicitations:

Per FAR 36.204, the estimated price range of this contract (base and all options) is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS

$500,000 - $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 $10,000,000 - $25,000,000 $25,000,000 - $100,000,000 $100,000,000 - $250,000,000

Contract line items (CLINS) Price/Costs:

CONTRACT LINE ITEMS

Item Number Supplies/Services Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 0001 Construction of

Warehouse 1 Job $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Item Number Supplies/Services Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 0001 Design and

Construction of Warehouse

0001AA Design of Warehouse 1 Job $1,000.00 $1,000.00

0001AB Construction of Warehouse

1 Job $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Fill in the highlighted sections

Info Only

Should include all item 0001 costs

• The typical Request for Proposal (RFP) is a significantly long document that reads like a legal text, and has very specific requirements. Make sure you thoroughly read and understand the proposal submission requirements and process.

• You may be disqualified for submitting a proposal that does not meet all of the requirements.

• Offerors are advised to provide their BEST PROPOSAL in the first submission.

UNDERSTANDING THE SOLICITATION PACKAGE

AND PREPARING THE PROPOSAL

A Debriefing under FAR Part 15 is an opportunity for an offeror to better understand the basis for an agency’s selection decision.

Debriefings give you a chance to hear from the agency regarding:

the evaluation process;

how your proposal was evaluated in relation to the evaluation criteria;

what was successful in your proposal;

what was lacking in need of improvement in your proposal; and reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether the source selection procedures were followed.

Offeror must submit a debriefing request to USACE within 3 calendar days after notification of exclusion from the competitive range or contract award.

DEBRIEFINGS

FY21 ROMANIA MATOC

W912GB21R0002

Offerors shall submit inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. See the solicitation for ProjNet registration instructions.

Bidder Inquiry Key:

Q5E9BN-BDHW3G

for SEED PROJECT – Aircraft Parking Apron inquiry title your question submission

(DC-21-0004)

Bidder Inquiries will be closed to new inquiries TEN calendar days before the proposal due date in order to appropriately respond and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES VIA PROJNET

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

Select USACE

Enter Email

• Task Orders

– Minimum Task Order $50,000.00

– Maximum Task Order is limited to $50,000,000. However, smaller and larger dollar value projects may be considered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer

• Total maximum ordering value $250,000,000 over five

(5) Years

– Base Ordering Period: Five (5) Years

W912GB21R0002 FY21 DBB ROMANIA MATOC

• Electronic Proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and costs, all responses to this announcement shall be submitted electronically. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized.

• Electronic submissions shall be via DoD SAFE Drop-Off at https://safe.apps.mil/. Offerors will need to “Request a Drop-off” and obtain a “Request Code” from the Contract Specialist in order to submit proposals.

• File Name. Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912GB20R0002 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912GB20R0002 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W912GB20R0002 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 2.pdf”

(4) “W912GB20R0002 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I diagrams, figures.pdf”

(5) “W912GB20R0002 RESPONSE Firmname Volume Two.pdf”

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions.

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Submission & Deadline.

Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document.

The time and date of proposal receipt will be the delivery time & date recorded of the email receipt on the Government’s server.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Offerors should time their email submission with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the delivery and/or read confirmation for their record but shall also request confirmation.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

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

Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance. Offerors shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) projects meeting the recency and relevancy definitions. Additionally, include completed CPARS records and/or completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms for each project submitted under Factor 1.

Section C - Factor 2, Management Approach. This section shall include a narrative describing the Offeror’s proposed management approach. Limited to 20 pages.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME I

Trade-off Process (FAR 15.101-1) In the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Factors include:

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule – Seed Project

Price Factor Factor 4 – Price – Seed Project

Relative Importance of the Evaluation 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).

SOURCE SELECTION APPROACH

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 00 - Evaluation

Offerors must a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) projects meeting the following definition for recent and relevant projects. For Factor 1 evaluation purposes, the definition of a recent and relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

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.

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.

RECENT AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 10 - Evaluation

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.

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 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).

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

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.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONT)

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

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE)

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

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.

• 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.

• 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.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE - CONT)

Past Performance Relevancy:

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.

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.

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

FACTOR 1: RATING

The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic. The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the management plan:

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

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

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

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

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

v. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of engineering, 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.

See next slide for combined technical/risk rating.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

FACTOR 2: RATING

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal 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 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

This section shall include a Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents for the SEED Project.

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.

FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE AND

SCHEDULE - SEED PROJECT

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.

FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE AND

SCHEDULE – SEED PROJECTS (CONT)

FACTOR 3: RATING

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal 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 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE

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

i. The solicitation number.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

2. 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.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II

VOLUME II, PRICE & ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Continued)

3. Section C – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA), Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG), Bonds, Insurance, and other Sureties

i. BLA issued by a bank, insurance company, or valid financial institution for the value of $10,000,000.00 As an

ii. alternative to the above, the Offeror may submit a Bid Bond or other bid guarantee in the amount of

$10,000,000.00

iii. BLG within seven (7) calendar days after the date of task order award

iv. Failure to provide a bid bond or letter of assurance will determine your proposal incomplete and not evaluated

4. 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.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (CONT )

5. Section E – Price – Seed Project

i. The Offeror is required to submit a complete the Seed Project Price Proposal Form (Attachment 9 –

Seed Project Price Schedule) that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs).

ii. An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal for the seed project may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (CONT )

KEY DEFINITIONS

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.

WEAKNESS:

• A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS:

• A flaw that substantially increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 00 - Evaluation

QUESTIONS?

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW &

OVERSEAS CONTRACTING

MS. LESLIE REED

OFFICE OF COUNSEL

• US Procurement Regulations and Important Clauses

• Prime Contractor Project Management

• US Contracting Officers

• Joint Ventures, Teaming Agreements, Key Subcontractors, Affiliates

• Defense Base Act Insurance

• Taxes and VAT

• Bonding Requirements

• Questions

OVERVIEW

Contracts are awarded and executed under United States Procurement laws and regulations.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm

Army FAR Supplement (AFARS) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfafara.htm

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW AND REGULATIONS

DFARS 252.233-7001

This contract shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the United States of America. By the execution of this contract, the Contractor expressly agrees to waive any rights to invoke the jurisdiction of local national courts where this contract is performed and agrees to accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and the United States Court of Federal Claims for the hearing and determination of any and all disputes that may arise under the Disputes clause of this contract.

CHOICE OF LAW (OVERSEAS)

DISPUTES AND CLAIMS REGULATIONS

41 United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapt. 71 -Contract Disputes

FAR Subpart 33.2, Disputes and Appeals

FAR 52.233-1, Disputes

In Specs The contractor agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States Government against all claims and suits of whatsoever nature arising under or incidental to the performance of this contract by any subcontractor against the United States Government. The Contractor further agrees to waive his rights to bring suit or other legal action against the United States Government, except as provided in the Disputes clause of this contract and in the United States Federal Statutes.

IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCESS

• The U.S. Government is very concerned that laborers on our projects receive working conditions and wages in accordance with Host Nation laws and regulations

• “Compliance With Local Labor Laws”, provides that contractors must comply with all host nation labor laws and regulations including laws and regulations relating to hours of work and compensation.

• Be aware that this applies to subcontractors as well as the prime contractor – the prime contractor is responsible for ensuring that all workers on the project are properly paid, regardless of whether the workers are employed directly by the prime contractor, principal subcontractor or subcontractors at any tier.

• The Government will always hold the prime responsible.

COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LABOR LAWS

• The U.S. Government contracts are with the prime contractors.

• USACE expects the prime contractor to actively manage the project and ensure the work meets contract requirements and the U.S. Government will hold the prime contractors responsible for contract execution.

• When issues arise, the U.S. Government deals with primes, not subcontractors.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Solicitation Specifications Binder covers contractor responsibilities and obligations:

– Adequately manning and staffing the project.

– The contractor assumes the risk and cost of obtaining the necessary labor to execute the project.

– The U.S. Government will not compensate you if labor turns out to be more expensive than you expected. This is true even if the reason for the added expense is a change in the host nation (HN) laws/regulations that increases your labor cost.

– The U.S. Government cannot influence the HN regarding visas or work permits and may not provide any assistance.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT (CONT.)

U.S. CONTRACTING OFFICERS

• The U.S. acts through warranted Contracting Officers (KOs).

• Contracting Officers are assisted by Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) and Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) acting within the bounds of authority delegated to them by the Contracting Officer.

• Only a warranted Contracting Officer (or designated ACO) may provide direction to a contractor on a U.S. Government contract.

69JOINT VENTURES, TEAMING AGREEMENTS, KEY

SUBCONTRACTORS, AFFILIATES

• What if the Prime has a lot of experience, but NO or little experience working in the Host Nation?

• What if the Prime is a host nation company with a lot of experience, but no or very little experience with the U.S. GOVERNMENT or the U.S.

Department of Defense?

– To be more competitive in terms of experience, applicants often enter into Joint Ventures (JVs). In JVs, the two (or more) companies become the Prime. They are equally, jointly and severally liable and responsible for all work performed (each other’s contrbutions), and the Government can deal directly with the JV.

JOINT VENTURES

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture (JV), the experience and past performance for each joint venture partner will be considered for the joint venture entity. JVs shall submit the following:

– A legally binding JV agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the JV.

– Shall identify the chief executive of each entity identified

– Shall be translated into English

– Shall include a detailed statement outlining, in terms of percentages, which JV member is responsible for what aspects of the project, the relationship of the JV in terms of ownership/capital contribution, profit/loss sharing; and which party has overall control, etc.

– Note: The Contract will provide that JV members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract. The JV Agreement should also state this.

JOINT VENTURES See Request for Proposal (RFP) for exact Instructions

- If forming a JV is not an option, contractors may receive credit for the experience, past performance and capabilities of a teaming partner if the proposal includes an agreement with full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships, which must be signed by authorized representatives of all team members. The Government must be able to assess the past experience of that teaming partner and at least one of the 5 projects you submit for past performance and experience must include a relevant and recent past project for that team member.

-The proposal must explain the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full description of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement).

The “credit” given will depend on the nature and extent of the proposed participation of the teaming partner.

TEAMING AGREEMENTS

• During Source Selection, prime contractors can receive credit for the experience, past performance and capabilities of a subcontractor provided the proposal includes a letter of commitment that describes the type of services the subcontractor will perform and that it is signed by authorized representatives of both the prime and subcontractor.

KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

• During Source Selection, prime contractors can receive credit for the experience of an “Affiliate.” The term “Affiliate” is defined in the U.S. regulations, but typically it refers to a parent corporation or a “sister” company (both subsidiaries of the same parent corporation.)

• If the prime wants to rely on the experience of an Affiliate, its proposal must demonstrate a firm commitment that the Affiliate will participate meaningfully in terms of roles and responsibilities in the performance of the contract. This commitment and the nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the prime and its Affiliate.

AFFILIATES

•The past performance and experience of proposed key personnel will NOT be considered when evaluating an Offeror’s past performance and experience, but it will be taken into account under the Management factor.

KEY PERSONNEL

76TEAMING AGREEMENTS, KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

& AFFILIATES

• This ability to get “credit” for such these arrangements has its limits, however. Past performance is still a factor and reliance on these Teaming Arrangements for past performance and experience does not relieve the Offeror of its obligation to supply at least two qualifying projects to demonstrate its own past performance and experience on the portions of the contract it will perform or manage.

• Also, whether the teams have worked together before successfully will be considered (this is true for new JV’s as well). If there is no prior experience together, be sure to address in the Management factor why that will not present a risk of successful performance.

• Since the U.S. Government will rely on the past experience of JV members, teaming partners, key subcontractors, key personnel and Affiliates in deciding which proposal offers the best value, the inability or failure to use those same entities or personnel in the manner proposed could result in a termination of the contract.

• In general, substitutions are not guaranteed. The Contracting Officer must determine if the substituted entity or person is comparable to the entity or person proposed in terms of experience and capabilities. If they are not, the Contracting Officer has the discretion to decline the proposed substitution.

WHAT IF A SUBSTITUTION IS NEEDED?

• The DBA covers persons employed at US defense bases overseas. The DBA is designed to provide medical treatment and compensation to employees of defense contractors injured in the scope and course of their work for the U.S. Government.

• Romania has a waiver from the DBA Insurance requirements with respect to workers covered by Romania’s “COMPULSORY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAWS.”

• Clause 52.000-4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE (DEFENSE BASE ACT) – COUNTRIES WITH WAIVERS (SEPTEMBER 2017) – has a link where you can click to get a copy of the terms of the waiver for Romania. The RFP will be amended to include this clause.

• This waiver does NOT apply to US citizens, lawful residents of the US, or employees hired in the US. For such employees, reference the FAR Clause 52.228-3 Worker's Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) JUL 2014.

• For those not covered by the waiver, awardees will need to submit proof of DBA insurance policy within a set time after task order award, including the seed project that will be awarded with the base contract.

DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE

DBA (CONT):

• Contract clause 52.228-3 Worker's Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) JUL 2014

• Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance is commercially available from carriers and self-insured employers authorized by the Department of Labor (DOL).

The DOL table of authorized carriers and self-insured employers is available at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lscarrier.htm

TAX EXEMPTIONS

United States contractors when working solely for the purpose of supporting the U.S. Government in Romania shall not be subject to any form of income or profits tax by the governments of those countries.

Importation of articles by any contractors acting on behalf of the U.S. shall be free of any import duties or taxes.

• Articles and services acquired by contractors acting on behalf of the U.S. should not be subject to direct or indirect taxation, to include value added taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes or similar taxes.

• The RFPs specifications outline the specific VAT procedures for each Romania.

VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

• Typically US government requires 100% Performance and Payment bonds issued by approved US surety companies (See FAR 52.228-15)

• If specifically allowed in the RFP (which it is here), a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and a Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) are required. The BLA in the amount of $10M must be submitted, and after award of a task order, a Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) must be submitted (typically 10% - 25% of contract or task order award).

• The Government must be able to draw on the BLGs upon request without the need to take any legal action or obtain the consent of the contractor or any other proof or action. There is no flexibility to change the terms of the BLA and BLG documents that are attachments to the RFP.

Note: If a Joint Venture (JV), the Bank Letter of Assurance must cover the JV, not just one member of the JV.

BONDING REQUIREMENTS

QUESTIONS?

MATOC SEED PROJECT

OVERVIEW –AIRCRAFT

PARKING APRON

BRIT STREEBIN

A/E BLACK & VEATCH PROJECT MANAGER

CAMPIA TURZII AIR BASE SITE OVERVIEW

Project Site Overview

N3 C1

Control Tower

Taxiway D

Haul Route & Laydown

Host Nation Coordination

• Airfield Work Plan - Attachment

2 SPEC 01 30 01

• 50 meter safe zones

• Coordinate work in safe zones

Apron

• Sized and sited to accommodate 18 of the largest and widest NATO-equivalent TFA weapons systems parked at an angle of 45 degrees

• Includes perimeter taxi lanes on all four sides of the apron

• TFA design aircraft include the F-15 Eagle (governing length) and the A-10

Warthog (governing wingspan)

• Jet Blast Deflectors (contract option) will be installed for protection of future developments along the northeast and southeast sides of the apron

Taxiway D

Apron N3 Apron C1

Taxiway Ladders

• Sized to accommodate NATO-equivalent Tactical Fighter Aircraft (TFA), Strategic Transport Aircraft (STA), and civil aircraft

• Governing design aircraft include the C-17 Globemaster and C-5 Galaxy

Demo

Demo Section of Existing N3

Demo TACAN and Building

Contract Option 1 Demo Trim Pad and Deflectors

(~4.5m tall)

Demo

Contract Option 2 Demo USAFE

GDT Pads

Demo Airfield Vault Floor for new cables to new CCR

Demo multiple manhole risers

Utilities - Electrical

• Includes airfields lighting and guidance signs for the apron and ladder taxiways, flood lighting over the apron (contract option), Apron lighting controls, grounding, and lightning protection

• Contract Option 6 - Flood lighting connection to Northern substation

• Apron edge lighting new CCR in Vault

• Taxiway edge lighting new CCR in Vault (replaces old CCR)

• All newly installed airfield lighting will be LED type

• Individual Lamp Control and Monitoring (ILCMS) – Stop Bars on Taxiway Ladders

Utilities - Electrical

• Existing Edge Light CCR – Replacement with new 30kW CCR

• New Apron Edge Light CCR

• New airfield utility trench (includes flood demo)

• Contract Option – New A/C Unit

• Program of Logic Controller (PLC)

• Software and Hardware upgrade

• Includes Individual Lamp Control and Monitoring System

(ILCMS)

• ILCMS Master Modules on Taxiway Bravo CCRs

• Below grade penetration to vault

Utilities – Storm Water

Apron

• Trench drain along northern side of Apron Parallel to storm drain

• Flows to gravity fed oil water separators then to storm drain

• Routed from storm drain to underground storage

• Underground storage to existing storm water system Ladder Taxiways

• Trench drains on each side of ladder taxiways

• Taxiway Ladder H – routes to runway side

• Taxiway Ladder G – routes to Taxiway D side

Lift Station & Pump

Storm Water Pump

Contract Options Option 1:

• Demo Existing Host Nation Trim Pad and Stone Blast Deflectors Option 2:

• Demo existing US Forces GDT pads and anchor blocks Option 3:

• Install Jet Blast Deflectors along Northeast Side of Apron Option 4:

• Install Jet Blast Deflectors along Southeast Side of Apron Option 5:

• Installation of Taxiway G Option 6:

• Installation of flood lighting at the parking apron Option 7:

• Install split unit AC in Airfield Lighting Vault Option 8:

• Individual Lamp Control and Monitoring System (ILCMS) Upgrade

CONCLUSION /

FINAL REMINDERS

FINAL COMMENTS / REMINDERS

Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. Bidder Inquiry Keys: Q5E9BN-BDHW3G, for SEED PROJECT inquiry title your submission“(DC-21-0004)”

• You may be disqualified for submitting a proposal that does not meet all of the requirements.

• Proposals must be submitted via RFP instructions.

Lequita Byrd-Craig Contract Specialist Email: Lequita.Y.Byrd-Craig@usace.army.mil

Robin Prince Contracting Officer Email: Robin.G.Prince@usace.army.mil

POINTS OF CONTACT

Reference Section 00 00 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements

THANK YOU!

BACK UP SLIDES FOR MORE INFO

USACE/U.S. GOVERNMENT

SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

1…