B.08.03 W912GB21R0003 Amend 0001_3DEC20.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Deployable Airbase Systems-Facilities, Equipment, and Vehicle (DABS/FEV) Storage, Campia Turzii Air Base (CTAB), Romania

The purposes of this Amendment No. 0001 are to:

1. Revise Section 00 21 16;

2. Revise Section 00 22 16; and,

3. Revise FAR Provision 52.228-1.

See continution page for more information.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Dec-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 W912GB21R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Nov-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03-Dec-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:

W912GB21R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section 00 21 16 Instructions to Offerors

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Europe District (NAU) intends to award a stand-alone construction contract for the construction of the facilities in support of Deployable Airbase Systems-Facilities, Equipment, and Vehicle (DABS/FEV) Storage, Campia Turzii Air Base (CTAB), Romania. The magnitude of construction is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000. The construction completion period is 913 calendar days after the Contractor receives the Notice to Proceed.

2. NOTE: When the word “Offeror” is encountered in the RFP, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this Solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean USACE NAU. “Request for Proposal,” “RFP” and “Solicitation” are used synonymously throughout.

3. For the purposes of this Solicitation, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. The Government will evaluate both technical aspects of the proposal and price. The Government intends to award a single C-type contract. See Section 00 22 16 for further details on the Government’s evaluation approach.

B. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

The Government will hold a virtual pre-proposal conference on 17 November 2020 to accommodate continuing travel and meeting restrictions related to COVID-19. A site visit will be held in-person at Campia Turzii, Romania on 18 November 2020, time TBD.

C. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all Solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) at or before the exact time specified.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award.

Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will be made available for viewing at the Beta SAM website (http://www.beta.sam.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in Beta SAM. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

2. Inquiries. Offerors with technical inquiries and any other questions shall submit their inquiries via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet. The project number is: W912GB21R0003. The bidder inquiry key is: 6RNJIF-V3KNMR

Offerors are requested to review the plans and specifications in their entirety and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The Government reserves the right to decline addressing certain questions.

Additionally, the Government may elect not to answer certain questions during the 95% design RFP Part I that will be addressed in the 100% design RFP Part II issued via amendment. Offerors shall not rely upon the 95% design RFP Part I for development of proposal pricing as there will be changes between the 95% to 100% A-E design.

Further, no questions, unless in the Government’s interest, will be answered any later than 10 business days prior to the stated deadline for offers. All Offerors are encouraged to register on ProjNet for alerts to stay abreast of Q&A’s that are posted in reference to this Solicitation. Only self-registered users on ProjNet can submit and review inquiries. To self-register, go to the webpage, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the key for this Solicitation listed above, and your email address. After initial login, enter all the required information to create your user ID.

Verify the information on the next screen and from there you may submit and view inquiries. Those submitting inquiries will receive a system generated email notification when their inquiry has been processed and answered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

3. General Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. 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. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Electronic submissions shall be via email to both the Contract Specialist, Shawna West, at shawna.m.west@usace.army.mil and the Contracting Officer, Chris Brackett, at christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt.

b. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised that the file size limitation is

10MB due to email server restrictions. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections and deliver in separate emails. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

c. File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the firm’s name, followed by the Solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE,” followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “Firmname W912GB21R0003 RESPONSE Volume I.pdf”

(2) “Firmname W912GB21R0003 RESPONSE Volume I Schedule.XER”

(3) “Firmname W912GB21R0003 RESPONSE Volume II.pdf”

d. 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 point or larger and font text shall be legible. Pages shall be letter or A4 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. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this Solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

e. Submission & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the delivery time and date recorded of email receipt on the Government’s server. The time the electronic submission is sent by the interested party is not determinative. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Offerors should time their submission with prudence by not waiting until the last day—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.

Be advised that proposals received after the submission deadline will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR

15.208. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt.

f. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

SPECIAL NOTICE: System for Award Management. Please take notice that the System for Award Management (SAM, www.sam.gov) requires that firms submit an "original, signed notarized letter identifying the authorized Entity Administrator for the entity associated with the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number before the registration will be activated." This applies to all new entity registrations and all entity registration renewals, effective 29 April 2018. Further information behind this new requirement is posted to the General Services Administration's (GSA) announcement page at https://www.gsa.gov/samupdate. Please also refer to Federal Service Desk's (FSD) instructions on how to comply with this new requirement. NOTE: the instructions are different for domestic (U.S. based) and international (not U.S. based) firms. Offerors are reminded that this Solicitation includes the provision FAR 52.204-7 SAM and the resulting award will include the clause FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance. These 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. In order to eligible for the contract award resulting from this 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. Instructions for domestic entities (located in the U.S. or its outlying areas): https://fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=d2e67885db0d5f00b3257d321f96194b&sysparm_searc h=kb0013183. Instructions for international entities (not located in the U.S. or its outlying areas): https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=dbf8053adb119344d71272131f961946&sysparm_searc h=KB0013221

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, (1) to unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids, and (2) to the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.-

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be twenty percent (20%) of the bid price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less.

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.-

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section 00 22 16 Evaluation Factors for Award

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 cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph C of this section. 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 non-price factors (Factors 1-3) are approximately equal in importance; and, all non-price factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4).

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. Factors 1- 3 will be evaluated with the RFP Part I and Factor 4 will be evaluated with the RFP Part II. The RFP Part II will be issued via Amendment with the 100% A-E Design to the Offerors that submitted a proposal in response to the RFP Part I.

Factor 1: Past Performance (RFP Part I) Factor 2: Management Approach (RFP Part I)

Factor 3: Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule (RFP Part I) Factor 4: Price (RFP Part II)

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, and Letters of Commitment between the Prime Contractor and Key Subcontractor or Affiliate.

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.

(2) A Letter of Commitment between the Prime Contractor and other teaming party (e.g., Key Subcontrator and/or Affiliate). A Letter of Commitment sample is provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

b. Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a maximum of five (5) projects substantially complete or completed within the last six (6) years (from the RFP issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project.

Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum cost of $40,000,000.

Projects considered similar in scope will be vertical construction projects such as large warehouses and/or vehicle maintenance facilities performed within the European Union.

Projects that contain the features below may be considered to be more relevant:

i. Projects that demonstrate work in Romania.

ii. Projects that demonstrate working with the United States Government.

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

iv. Projects demonstrating working on United States military bases.

v. Projects constructed in remote locations with limited utilities.

Teaming Arrangements: If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a committed Subcontractor or Affiliate (i.e., a firm that is not the Prime Contractor) a Letter of Commitment signed by the Committed Subcontractor or Affiliate and the Prime Contractor shall be submitted. A Letter of Commitment sample is provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

The Offeror must also explain how the work performed on that project is relevant to the work the Subcontractor or Affiliate will perform under this Contract.

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 sample project for each such entity. Please note: the provided projects should reflect the same or significantly similar scope of work that will be performed by that entity under this Contract.

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.

The Offeror should complete a Past Performance Information Sheet provided as an attachment to this RFP or a similar document for each project. Past Performance Information Sheets or a similar document shall not exceed four

(4) pages per project.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first five (5) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

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

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 first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to the Submission Requirements paragraph above. By using the criteria above, the Government will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table below.

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.

The SST will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects.

The Government reserves the right to check any of all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPPIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Government will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table below. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

c. Section C - Factor 2, Management Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a Management Approach, 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 construction and permitting requirements in

Romania to include coordination with local authorities.

vi. Ability to communicate in Romanian and English.

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.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

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. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of construction and permitting requirements in Romania to include coordination with host nation authorities.

v. 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

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

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

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

The Offeror shall provide a plan describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents. The plan shall 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 shall 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 this project.

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.).

The Technical Approach Narrative shall not exceed 10 pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 10 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.

iii. Explanation of how durations were determined and logic developed.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

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.

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

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

High

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

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

2. VOLUME TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE

NOTE: SECTIONS A, B, AND C WITHIN THIS VOLUME TWO ARE DUE WITH

THE RFP PART I AND SECTION D (BLA OR BID GUARANTEE) AND

SECTION E ARE DUE WITH THE RFP PART II.

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 and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

(3) A statement indicating which type of Bid Guarantee will be submitted with the RFP Part II or if the Offeror intends to submit a Bank Letter of Assurance (refer to Section D below).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. Section D – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA),Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG), Bonds, Insurance and other Sureties, and Financial Information:

DO NOT SUBMIT A BLA OR BID GUARANTEE WITH THE RFP PART I.

THE RFP PART II WILL BE ISSUED VIA AMENDMENT WITH THE 100%

DESIGN TO THE OFFERORS THAT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN

RESPONSE TO THE RFP PART I. THE BLA OR BID GUARANTEE IS

DUE WITH THE RFP PART II.

40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act) and FAR 28.102 require a 100% performance and payment bonds issued by an acceptable corporate surety for any construction contract exceeding $150,000. This requirement may be waived, however, by the contracting officer for work performed in foreign countries if it is found that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond.

This contract will be performed in a country outside the United States, and the contracting officer has found that it is impracticable for many otherwise eligible firms to access bonding from approved sureties. As such, and in accordance with FAR Part 28 and applicable contract clauses, the following bonding options and financial protections from other sureties are considered acceptable by the contracting officer:

1. A 100% performance and payment bond, as specified by 52.228-15, Performance and Payment Bonds – Construction.

The contracting officer will only accept performance and payment bonds from corporate sureties that appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies,” or bonds supported by coinsurance or reinsurance agreements from such listed sureties and conforming to the Department of the Treasury regulations in 31 CFR 223.10 and 223.11, as elaborated in FAR Part 28. The contracting officer requires any reinsurance agreements to be executed and submitted with the bonds before making a final determination on the bonds.

If an offeror intends to provide performance and payment bonds upon contract award, it must provide with its RFP Part II a Bid Bond or other Bid Guarantee conforming to the requirements in FAR provision 52.228-1.

2. A Letter of Guarantee, as specified in clause 52.000-4062, “BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY,” equal to 20% of the contract award.

This letter may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the contracting officer. This letter must conform to the requirements in clause 52.000-4062 and substantively follow the model provided in the RFP. The Letter of Guaranty must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority.

If an offeror intends to provide a Letter of Guarantee upon contract award, it must provide with its RFP Part II a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) equal to 20% of the proposed price and substantively following the model provided in the RFP.

It should be noted that the Government will draw on Letter of Guaranty when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill his undertaking in whole or in part. As this contract requires the prime contractor to ensure the timely payment of satisfactorily performing subcontractors (see, e.g., FAR 52.232-2(c)), the failure to pay subcontractors can be considered a breach of contract and may result in the Government drawing on this Letter of Guaranty.

3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of clause 52.228-14 – “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” and is equal to 20% of the contract awardproposed price.

An ILC must secure both performance and payment under the contract and substantively conform to the model provided in clause 52.228-14. It must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade. As per 52.228-14(d), the offeror must provide the contracting officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the ILC.

4. Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 20% of the contract awardproposed price.

The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be in the same currency as the currency specified for the award of the contract. The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

5. United States bonds or notes equal to 20% of the contract awardproposed price.

The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The contracting officer may --

(a) Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

(b) Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

If an offeror will use any of the Bid Guarantee options described in paras. 3-5, above, or a BLA described in para. 2, above, their proposal must indicate that intent at Volume II Section A. Only the above options will be considered acceptable unless an alternative is approved by the contracting officer in advance of the closing date for the receipt of proposals in a formal amendment to the solicitation.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BID GUARANTEE OR LETTER OF

ASSURANCE AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE WILL DETERMINE YOUR

PROPOSAL TO BE INCOMPLETE AND IT WILL NOT BE

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.

6. 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.

e. Section E – Price

DO NOT SUBMIT PRICE WITH THE RFP PART I. THE RFP PART II

WILL BE ISSUED VIA AMENDMENT WITH THE 100% DESIGN TO THE

OFFERORS THAT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THE

RFP PART I. PRICE PROPOSALS ARE DUE WITH THE RFP PART II.

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

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate CLIN prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are reminded, in accordance with FAR 52.