W912GB22R0002 AMD 01 FY22 Romania MATOC.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

FY22 Romania DB MATOC

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Provide a revised Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ),

2) Revise sections 00 21 16 and 00 22 16 in their entirety. Changes are highlighted in "Red".

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912GB22R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Dec-2021

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 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

21-Dec-2021

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB22R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I

SECTION 00 21 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE I

1. Overview

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of five (5) contractors for firm fixed price multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) for design build construction services in Romania.

1.2. This is a two-phase procurement, and the basis of award is the best value trade-off process. The potential offers are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 21 16, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase I, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a target of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 16, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a maximum allowable binding contract rates. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a target of five (5) responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and that offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers.

The selected offerors will receive a minimum guarantee amount of € $2,000.00 via the award of an initial task order at the time of MATOC award. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract.

Upon award of a subsequent task order which exceeds the minimum guarantee, the minimum guarantee will be de-obligated via unilateral modification. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order might not result from this solicitation.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited action. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence, or in the wrong section of the proposal, may not be evaluated and may result in the offerors disqualification from award.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the RFP requirements.

2.2. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers electronically through the DoD SAFE website (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Please see the complete electronic proposal submission instructions within the solicitation (Section 00 21 00 – Instructions).

2.3. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted with a table of contents and clear divide between each section. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4. Volume I for Phase I shall include the following information:

Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach

2.5. Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted in a separate electronic document and include the following information:

Volume II: Tab A – Standard Form 1442 Volume II: Tab B – Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Volume II: Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Proof of Financial

Ability

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the best value trade-off process, as stated above.

3.2. The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: (1) proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, and (2) technical evaluation of past performance and management approach.

Proposal Compliance and Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract.

Evaluation of past performance and management approach: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the

Phase I, Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance (Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant experience (Table 1, below) and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Management Approach will be rated using Tables 3 and 4 below. The SSEB will assign an adjectival descriptor to the technical factors. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 3) and risk descriptions (see Table 4) below in section 4.5.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance:

past performance will be more important than management approach. The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Source Selection Authority’s selection of up to the ten

(10) most highly qualified offers to continue to Phase II of the procurement. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details in their Phase 1 proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of Phase 1 proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1. The Government may evaluate Phase 1 proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to talk with, or otherwise contact, offerors during Phase 1 and to request additional information or Phase 1 proposal revisions, if determined to be necessary and in the best interests of the Government

4.2. Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3. Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach 2nd

4.4. Volume II: Administrative Matters

Tab A Standard Form 1442

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and

Proof of Financial Ability

4.5. Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1 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.

Table 2

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. Proposal is unawardable.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Proposal is unawardable.

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.

Table 3 Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Proposal is unawardable.

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.

Table 4 Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts 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.

4.6. Definitions

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

5. Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance

5.1. Submission Requirements

Provide descriptions of a minimum of two (2), and a maximum of five (5) substantially complete or completed by the offeror or by one of its team members (with who the offeror has a Commitment Letter as discussed below). See below with respect to offerors who do not have past performance or teaming arrangement project samples sufficient to meet the minimum of two (2) requirement. In the case of an offeror that is a Joint Venture (JV), the contract must have been awarded to at least one member of the JV as the prime contractor or to a team member with a Commitment Letter as the prime contractor. In the case of any proposal that relies on a teaming arrangement for the projects submitted, the contract must have been awarded to that team member as the prime.

The offeror, a JV member, or any team member for which projects are submitted must have performed as the prime contractor on the project and the project must have been completed within the last 5 years (from the solicitation issue date). Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered less relevant. Projects are considered substantially complete at 95% completion, if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar in scope. Task orders may not be combined for them to be considered similar.

For a project to be considered for evaluation, it must be similar in size and scope the type of projects to be performed under this Contract.

Projects considered similar in size shall have a minimum contract value of €1,000,000.00.

Projects considered similar in scope to this project shall be design build construction of new facilities, real property repair, and maintenance.

NOTE: Design/Bid/Build projects may be submitted; however, they may be considered less relevant than Design/Build projects.

The prime contractor on the sample project must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

Demonstrated experience in successfully completing design build projects in Romania.

Demonstrated experience in successfully completing design build projects for the United States

Department of Defense.

The following information shall be provided for each project:

Project title, location, and contract number/unique identifier.

Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete. For projects that are not 95% complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if project includes both.

Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

Whether the project involved new construction, renovation, or both. Clearly delineate square footage for construction and renovation.

Whether the project was completed for the United States Department of Defense.

For this factor, also include any information that supports past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify the submitted project[s] to which it pertains. A sample past performance questionnaire is attached. If used, the past performance questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

For each project under Factor I, offerors shall include a completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or a completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form (PPQ). If available, a completed record from the CPARS will be accepted for evaluation for 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 PPQ Form, provided as an RFP attachment.

PPQ Instructions: The offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided PPQ 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 PPQs 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.

Team Arrangements: As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. Please refer to section 7.2 with respect to submission requirements for a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors.

In the case of prime-sub teams, work with affiliates or other teaming partners, offerors are reminded that the offeror is the prime contractor and remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and third parties. Consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of key subcontractors, affiliates or other team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Any subcontract(s) or other teaming agreements may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the required commitment letters (RFP Attachment 4).

The failure of the offeror to perform with one or more committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates except that, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a firm with equivalent or greater capability a firm that was proposed with a Commitment Letter in the proposal. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria

The SSEB will evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant each past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited MATOCs scope of work. A relevancy assessment will be made on each submitted project using the past performance relevancy ratings table above.

The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all citied references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contract the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including 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. Other sources may, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for the offeror. The SSEB will 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 SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6. Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach

6.1. Submission Requirements

Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s management approach and intended corporate technical approach for executing the design build contract per the detailed requirements herein.

Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how members of the team, including sub-contractors (if applicable), will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of future task orders. The Management Approach shall include the following:

o The narrative shall discuss the offeror’s plan and capability to manage multiple task orders concurrently.

o The narrative shall discuss the offeror’s knowledge of engineering and design in Romania and the ability to communicate in English.

o The narrative shall discuss the offeror’s criteria for the selection of a designer of record for future task order awards for the solicited MATOC.

o The narrative shall discuss the offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage sub-contractors in Romania.

i.Provide an organizational chart and narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the offeror’s Headquarters to the offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative shall include the following:

Identify all offices involved in this contract Identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location, including subcontractors and consultants Include lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract Clearly show the lines of authority of the offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and Safety

Organization, including all JV Partners and subcontractors, when applicable

b. The Management Approach narrative shall address the information described in the paragraphs below.

Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s Design-Build team and how their resources will be utilized to deliver future design build task order awards. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team (i.e., key members), explaining how the design and construction process will be managed throughout the entirety of future task order life cycles (e.g., Design, Construction, Close-out).

Communication Plan: Describe interactions and communications both within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers throughout the entirety of the base MATOC life cycle, as well as that of any future task order awards.

Quality Control: Describe the Design-Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

o Provide specific information on how you will manage and track changes/revisions both during the design phase and construction phase of a given task order.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10), 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 10 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Approach factor. If the page limit is exceeded, only the first ten (10) pages will be read and evaluated. There is a page limit of one (1), 11” x 17” page, for the organizational chart portion of this factor. The organizational chart does not count against the 10 page limit. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be evaluated.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal. The

Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design/Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects. Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal to demonstrate their approach for successfully completing a Design/Build task order, as well as how they will manage the overall MATOC.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record, construction firm, and the Government reviewers. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to execute design/build projects, to include the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction, as well as the strength of the offeror’s proposed approach to control and track revisions to the design. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and capabilities to perform design build construction projects in Romania, to include coordination with host nation authorities. The Government will evaluate if the offeror demonstrated thorough understanding of the certification and registration requirements for companies in Romania and the ability to meet the requirements, along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in English.

7. Volume 2: Administrative Matters (Submit in separate PDF file)

7.1. Tab A - Standard Form 1442

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442.

Provide Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully executed JV agreements and fully executed teaming agreements.

o 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.

Evaluation Criteria

The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

NOTE: Phase I does not involve pricing submission.

7.2. Tab B – Joint Venture (JV) Agreements

If the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal. Projects performed by contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners, affiliates or subcontractors, may be evaluated for past performance; however, Commitment Letters must be provided as discussed below.

o 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.

Teaming Arrangements: If an offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a firm other than the offeror such as a subcontractor, team member, or affiliate (defined in FAR 2.101), a Letter of Commitment signed by authorized representatives of the offeror and by authorized representatives of the non-offeror firm must be submitted with the proposal. A sample for such Commitment Letters is provided as an attachment (Attachment 4). The signatures and substantive terms of these sample commitments are required for consideration of any teaming arrangement for evaluation purposes.

Evaluation Criteria

This information will be used for the purpose of completing a compliance review.

7.3. Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Proof of Financial Ability

Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

Offerors shall submit financial information to demonstrate they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. For example, past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and/or bank name, number and POC, etc.

Evaluation Criteria

This information will be used for the purpose of performing a compliance review. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds and other surety alternatives.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE II

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE II

***THIS SECTION IS ONLY FOR OFFERORS WHO PROCEED TO PHASE II***

1. Overview

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of five (5) contractors for firm fixed price multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) for design build construction services in Romania.

1.2. This is a two-phase procurement, and the basis of award is the best value trade-off process. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 16, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of binding contract rates. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a target of five (5) contractors to the responsible offers whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers. For Phase II submittals, requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

The selected offerors will receive a minimum guarantee amount of $2,000.00 via the award of a task order at the time of MATOC award. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract. Upon award of a subsequent task order that exceeds the minimum guarantee, the minimum guarantee will be de-obligated via unilateral modification. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any Offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order might not result from this solicitation.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited action. For Phase II, requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums.

Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence, or in the wrong section, may not be evaluated and may result in the offerors disqualification from award.

2.2. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers electronically through the DoD SAFE website (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Please see the complete electronic proposal submission instructions within the solicitation (Section 00 21 00 – Instructions).

2.3. For Phase II, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted with a table of contents and clear divide between each section. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4. Volume I for Phase II shall include the following information:

Volume I: Factor III – Technical Approach

2.5. Volume II for Phase II shall be submitted in a separate electronic document and include the following information:

Volume II: Factor IV – Price /Financial Protections Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule Tab B – Selection of a Surety alternative (see below and the document requirements for each alternative)

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the best value trade-off process, as stated above.

3.2. The evaluation process for Phase II essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

Proposal Compliance and Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and surety financial protection.

Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Phase II, Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Technical Approach will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The SSEB will assign an adjectival descriptor to the technical factor. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the technical ratings.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 1) and risk descriptions (see Table 2) below.

Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

Price/Technical Trade-Off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1. Phase II proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All non-price factors when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the RFP requirements.

4.2. Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1 Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Proposal is unawardable.

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.

Table 2 Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor efforts 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.

4.3. Definitions

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

5. Volume I: Factor III – Technical Approach

5.1. Submission Requirements

The offeror shall provide a comprehensive plan for the start-up and management of two simultaneous task orders. The first task order would be for the design build construction of a building on Câmpia Turzii, Romania with a total value of $1,000,000.00. The second task order would be for the design build construction of a building on Mihail Kogălniceanu, Romania totaling $5,000,000.00. The plan should include the following discussion points:

5.1..1. Requesting base access (if applicable).

5.1..2. Mobilization to the site.

5.1..3. Describe the potential risk areas in managing these projects along with the measures the offeror will include to mitigate risk.

5.1..4. Plan for delivering and sourcing of the primary construction materials required for the two (2) project task orders.

5.1..5. Cleary identify any constraints presented, such as labor or material availability, permitting, host nation coordination, weather, etc.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10), 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 10 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Management Approach factor. If the page limit is exceeded, only the first ten (10) pages will be read and evaluated.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria

The SSEB will evaluate the plan for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk based on the information provided in response to the submission requirements under this factor. In addition, the Government may use independent judgement concerning logic and constraints.

6. Volume 2: Price/Financial Protections (Submit in separate PDF file)

6.1. Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

Evaluation Criteria

The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

6.2. Tab B – Financial Protections (Surety obligations)

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES: 40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Sub-Chapter 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 will 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.

Upon award of a potential base contract, future task order awards 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 and will be required as set forth below.

PLEASE NOTE: An offeror must supply a Bank Letter of Assurance or a Bid Guarantee as described below with their Phase II proposal. Failure to do so will result in the proposal being unawardable.

1. Bank…