W912GB22R0002 AMD 04 FY22 Romania MATOC PHASE II Offerors ONLY.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

W912GB22R0002 FY22 Romania DB MATOC

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Extend the phase II proposal due date to 22 June 2022 at 1300hrs Central European Summer Time,

2) Revise attachement 5 BLA sample, Revise section 00 22 16.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Jun-2022

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 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Jun-2022 01:00 PM to 22-Jun-2022 01:00 PM.

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 sample task order would be for the design build construction of a new building on Câmpia Turzii, Romania with a total value of $1,000,000.00. The second sample task order would be for the design build construction of a building renovation on Mihail Kogălniceanu, Romania totaling $5,000,000.00.

These sample projects are NOT seed projects. They are hypotheticals for bidding purposes on this MATOC only. 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 Technical 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 Letter of Assurance (BLA) and subsequent Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG): If an offeror selects this alternative, it must provide with its Phase II proposal a Bank Letter of Assurance for the value of €1,000,000 conforming to the requirements and substantively adhering to the sample provided in RFP Attachment 5. This letter may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the contracting officer and must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority. Please note that these terms and conditions shall not be changed or supplemented with other terms. Also note that the BLA requires the bank to provide a Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG) with the same terms and conditions of RFP Attachment 6.

Upon award of future task orders, the contractor must supply a Bank Letter of Guarantee, equal to 10% of the task order award. This letter must conform to the requirements and shall substantively follow the model provided in the RFP. The Bank Letter of Guaranty must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority.

It should be noted that the Government will draw on such Bank Letters of Guarantee if and when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the task order or the base 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 the Bank Letter of Guaranty.

2. Bid Guaranty. If an offeror selects this alternative, it must provide with its Phase II proposal a Bid

Guarantee in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the form of an assurance that upon award of any task order to the Offeror, a firm commitment will be issued for 100% of the Task Order amount. The firm commitment will be provided to the Government within seven (7) calendar days after Task Order award and will be in the form of performance and payment bonds as specified by 52.228-15, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

If the Offeror selects the Bid Guaranty alternative, upon award of any future task orders, the offeror must furnish one of the following in accordance with the terms of the Task Order RFP:

a. 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 CFR 223.11, as elaborated in FAR Part 28. The contracting officer may require any reinsurance agreements to be executed and submitted with the bonds before making a final determination on the bonds.

b. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of clause 52.228-14, “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” and is equal to 10% of the task order award. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit 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 Irrevocable Letter of Credit.

c. Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 10% of the contract award. 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.

d. United States bonds or notes equal to 10% that of the task order award. 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 --

1. Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

2. 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.

Evaluation Criteria

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the internal compliance review. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds and other financial protections.

(End of Summary of Changes)