Amendment 0003.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

The purpose of this Amendment: the follow ing documents has been revised:

1.Replace SOW dated 17 March 2022 (attached w ith track changes) 2.Replace Bid Schedule dated 17 March 2022 3.Removal Specs 32 31 00 and 32 18 16 in their entirety, Updated Specs 00 74 11 and 04 74 17 to 10/21 versions.

4.Replace Specs Binder in its entirety w /Spec Binder date 17 Mar 2022 5.Extend Proposal Due Date: 13 April 2022

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Mar-2022

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 W912GB22R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Feb-2022

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

23-Mar-2022

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:

W912GB22R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Mar-2022 10:00 AM to 13-Apr-2022 12:00 AM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Interested firms or Joint Venture entities (collectively referred to in the Solicitation as “Offerors”) shall submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute task orders resulting from a contract award under this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and this Solicitation will result in a single contract 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 price and non-price factors. Award will be made to a single Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described herein. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” and no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management and Technical Approach

Factor 3: Price Schedule for Playground SATOC Labor Rates and Service

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

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 commitment letters.

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.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed JV must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the JV must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal. Projects performed by contractors than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, may be evaluated for past performance; however, Commitment Letters must be provided as discussed within In Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance, SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS below.

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:

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

(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.

Other formal 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 Attachment 7. The signatures and substantive terms of these sample commitments are required for consideration of the teaming arrangement for evaluation purposes.

b. Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a maximum of five (5) projects that meet the following criteria for recent and relevant projects.

i. At least two projects in which the Offeror self-performed management of the entire project and self-performed at least 25% of the work greater than 75% of the work as the prime contractor (see below with respect to Offerors who have no past performance history).

ii. The project/task order was completed no earlier than six (6) calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or is at least 75% complete at the closing date of this RFP.

iii. The project/task order was to perform design and installation/repair or installation/repair only of playground/sport/fitness equipment/fall protective/resilient surfaces and the minor construction incidental to the installation of this equipment to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and International Playground Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) standards, for U.S. Government stakeholders within the U.S European Command (EUCOM) geographic Area of Responsibility (AOR) or within the Continental United States.

JV Member and Teaming Arrangements: As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. 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 Offeror 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 7).

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.

If the Offeror wants the Government to consider the past performance of a JV member or a team member 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. The maximum number of projects submitted, however, remains five (5). Please note: JV member or team member project examples should reflect the same or significantly similar scope of work that will be performed by that entity under this Contract. Also, reliance on a teaming arrangement for past performance does not relieve the Offeror of its obligation to supply at least two qualifying projects to demonstrate its own past performance on the portions of the contract it will perform or manage. If an Offeror has no past performance history relevant to the portions of the contract it will perform or manage, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance. If no past performance can be verified, this may result in a Past Performance rating of Neutral as discussed below.

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.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall include completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 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 3. CPARS are not available, the Offeror shall include a completed Past Performance Overview Sheet and a completed Past Performance Information Sheet for each project. Sample sheets are provided as RFP Attachments 2A and 2B. Past Performance Information sheets 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.

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.

The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Government will evaluate the recent, relevant performance of the Offeror (and any JV member or team member for which example projects have been submitted for evaluation) and assign one confidence rating for this factor.

The Government will evaluate each demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation. Then, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (and any JV member or team member’s) quality of performance to determine a single confidence assessment rating for the Offeror. Projects that are considered to be more relevant will have more influence on the past performance confidence rating.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

a. Recency. Projects submitted should be completed within six years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 75% complete) that are for similar work as that required in this solicitation. Projects submitted that are beyond six years may be considered, but may be considered less relevant.

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

The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine the Offeror’s past performance that demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under this Solicitation.

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

i. Projects that demonstrate past performance working in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy will be considered more relevant.

ii. Projects that demonstrate past performance managing multiple playground projects simultaneously.

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

iv. Projects with costs over €100,000.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that the SST may assess weaknesses against past performance examples that do NOT demonstrate one or more of the criteria listed above, that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project.

PAST PERFORMANCE: The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine how likely it is that Offerors will be successful when performing task orders under the awarded contract. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1.

Please note the Government reserves the right to review all recent past performance records available to make a confidence determination to include other projects not submitted by the Offeror. The Government also reserves the right to review past performance of any team members, including subcontractors or JV members for which the Offeror may have submitted project examples. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ Form):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

The Government may verify information provided by the Offeror with any source available and has the right to contact points of contact other than those listed by the Offeror. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, JV, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or committed subcontractors performing key elements of the project. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

During the best value tradeoff process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

c. Section C - Factor 2, Management and Technical Approach.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the Offeror’s proposed management and technical approach for successful execution of this Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) and the Offeror shall submit a graphical description (an organization chart) of its planned organization structure for successful execution of the contract. There is a limit of twenty (20) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back will be counted as two pages. If more than 20 pages are submitted, only the first 20 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart, resumes, and commitment letters are not considered part of the 20 pages. The Management and Technical Approach shall include at a minimum:

i. One (1) organizational chart that shows:

a. Lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract

b. Clearly shows the lines of authority of the key personnel to include: Project Manager, Quality Control Manager/Site ManagerSite Superintendent, Design/Layout Expert, On-Site Technical Experts, and Safety Inspector, Equipment Certifier/Certified Playground Safety Inspector

c. The organization chart shall also include all JV Partners and Key Subcontractors, when applicable; and

d. The chart shall identify all offices involved in this contract from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s), and how they are related; all positions shall be identified on the organization chart by title, organization, and physical location. The Project Manager, or the on-site person that communicates with the U.S. Government if the PM is not on-site, and any other personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S.

Government shall be clearly identified.

ii. A narrative description of the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all JV and/or Team Arrangement parties, and key personnel (listed in item i. above) shall be described. The narrative description shall also include the Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

a. quality control

b. staffing (both management and labor to perform a project)

c. obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors

d. obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing 3rd party inspector/auditor

iii. Resumes/certifications of proposed key personnel to include: Project Manager, Quality Control Manager/Site Manager, Design/Layout Expert, On-Site Technical Experts, and Safety Inspector, Equipment Certifier/Certified Playground Safety Inspector

iv. A narrative description of the Offeror’s plan for management of seven

(7) simultaneous task orders at various locations for inspections, and installation, maintenance and repair activities, including mobilization to the site; prime staffing, and/or JV, Subcontractor, and letters of commitments from additional personnel required to meet the minimum standards of the contract; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by subcontractors (for example, 3rd party equipment certifier).

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

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

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Management and Technical Approach will be evaluated as one factor.

This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this Single Award Task Order Contract. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the SRM, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the US Government as spelled out in the documents and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements.

The Offeror’s Management and Technical Approach will be used as a means

Formatted: Superscript to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution.

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

i. Clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the

Government on the organizational chart organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Key Personnel, Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

ii. Comprehensively describes the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all JV and/or Team Arrangement parties, and key personnel (listed in item i. above) shall be described. The narrative description shall also include the Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

a. quality control

b. staffing (both management and labor to perform a project)

c. obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors

d. obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing 3rd party inspector/auditor

iii. Provides resumes/certifications of proposed key personnel meeting or exceeding SOW C.1.6.1. qualifications to include: Project Manager, Quality Control Manager/Site Manager, Design/Layout Expert, On-Site Technical Experts, and Safety Inspector, Equipment Certifier/Certified Playground Safety Inspector (listed in item iii above).

iv. A comprehensive and logical narrative description of the Offeror’s plan for management of seven (7) simultaneous task orders at various locations for inspections, and installation, maintenance and repair activities, including mobilization to the site; prime staffing, and/or JV, Subcontractor, and letters of commitments from additional personnel required to meet the minimum standards of the contract; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by subcontractors.

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 II – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS and PRICE

a. Section A – Executive Summary.

i. Offerors shall submit a one (1) page cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

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

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

c. Section C – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and Bank Letter of Guaranty

(BLG):

i. BLA issued by a bank, insurance company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable by the Contracting Officer for the value of €1,000,000.003,000,000.00, containing the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP Attachment 5 shall be submitted with the proposal and shall include no different or additional terms.

BLG: Within SEVEN (7) calendar days after the date of award, the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer a Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG) for the performance of the work in the amount of €3,000,000, which is approximately ten percent (10%) of the total SATOC contract value, or lesser amount, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, conforming to the format of the sample letter. Failure to furnish the BLG may be deemed a breach of contract. The BLG will be dated as of the contract award date or as soon thereafter as possible. The BLG shall state that it will continue in effect without change in amount or terms until the work has been finally inspected and accepted by the Government, and that thereafter it will continue in effect until expiration of any applicable warranty periods or extensions thereof in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the contract price. The BLG shall also state that the bank agrees and consents that the contract may be modified by change order or supplemental agreement without affecting the validity of the BLG. The Contracting Officer may require and the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer with an increase in the amount of the BLG because of increases to the contract value. The BLG must containing the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP Attachment 6 and shall include no different or additional terms. The authorization to issue "Notice to Proceed" will not be effected until after approval and acceptance by the Contracting Officer of the BLG. The BLG shall be interpreted in accordance with U.S. law and is subject to the Choice of Law and Immunity for Legal Process clauses in the solicitation.

THE PROPOSAL MAY BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE

EVALUATED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BANK LETTER OF

ASSURANCE AS PRESCRIBED IN Section 01 30 00 – Administrative Requirements subsection 2.1.3(a).

d. Section D – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the following:

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

ii. A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data, “assertions”, and “POCs”.

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

e. Section E – Factor 3, Price Schedule for Playground SATOC Labor Rates and Service.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror is required to submit a complete Price Schedule for Playground SATOC Labor Rates and Service (Attachment 4 – in excel). Pricing shall be completed for all required field entries and all tabs (Base Year 1 through 5), these constitute the all contract line item numbers (CLINs). Rates to be proposed are fully burdened. An Offeror that fails to submit a complete Pricing Schedule may not receive further consideration.

From a price perspective, an Offeror’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together.

PRICING

1. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Price Schedule of Services and Rates, pricing shall be used to administer the contract in conjunction with the Equipment Catalog, see this section and Scope Statement of Work. Line Items in the Schedule of Services and Rates are firm-fixed-prices with quantities are determined and negotiated per Task Order.

Individual Task Orders will be issued as a lump sum firm-fixed-price.

The contractor shall perform all work including inspections, minor construction incidental to the equipment installation and/or fitness/sports fields, and shall provide all equipment, material, transportation and shipping, required to complete all Task Order work.

The price of each line item on the Price Schedule of Services and Rates shall be the fully burdened rate covering all costs incidental to the performance of that particular line item. The fully burdened rate shall include all direct and indirect costs, as well as all other costs associated with the line item to include but not limited to:

a. Contractor's overhead and profit

b. Subcontractor’s overheard and profit

c. All cost associated with bank guaranty or bond premiums

d. All waste and excess material

e. Employee payroll taxes, insurance and fringe benefits

f. Other Insurances

g. Business taxes, contributions, memberships, corporate headquarters support (legal, financial, etc.)

h. Compliance with environmental laws (overhead {indirect} cost associated with performing work in compliance with EPA/OSHA regulations including local Government requirements, including obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, reporting requirements, etc.)

i. Mobilization and close out for the total contract and each Task Order

j. Compliance with protection and safety laws (i.e., safety rails, face and clothing protection, etc.)

k. Clean up

l. Traffic and work-site signs and barriers

m. Project management and supervision

n. Quality control

o. Submittal preparation

p. Office management and equipment

q. Depreciation of mobile office(s)

r. Protection of Government property

s. Interest associated with funding of equipment and payroll

t. As built drawings

u. Permits, licenses and fees

v. Salaries of personnel (other than hourly rates as defined in paragraph C.1.6.1.8), required to operate and manage the contract, information technology and computer equipment required to manage the contract, off base storage facilities, offices, administrative supplies, office equipment, incidental engineering, job site supervision, vehicle operations and maintenance expenses and telephone charges

w. Travel and transportation

x. Other risk of doing business (i.e. currency fluctuation risk)

The number of hours for hourly labor rate line items as defined in paragraph C.1.6.1.8 will be negotiated per project, when required, and the total price included in the lump sum price of the Task Order.

Construction provisions have been added and will apply to the construction work.

Line items considered construction have a C preceding the line item number on the Price Schedule of Services and Rates.

The Government will make all Task Order awards and all payments for the entire life of the contract and all exercised options in Euros.

2. LABORER

Labor rates as defined in paragraph C.1.6.1.8, line item 0001, shall be as indicated on Section B, Schedule of Services and Rates, with quantities determined and negotiated per Task Order and shall be considered fully burdened rates.

3. RESILIENT SURFACE SYSTEM, POURED IN PLACE OVER MINERAL

OR AGGREGATE and RUBBER SURFACE SYSTEM PLACED OVER

CONCRETE OR ASPHALT

Resilient and Rubber Surface Systems, line items 0002 and 0003, shall be as indicated on Section B, Schedule of Services and Rates, with quantities

4. DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF MINERAL AGGREGATE BASE;

MISCELLANEOUS WORK DESCRIPTION; DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF

FENCING; and DEMOLITION

Work for line item C-0004 and C-0005 through and inclusive of C-0030 shall be as indicated on Section B, Schedule of Services and Rates, with quantities

5. EQUIPMENT CATALOG

Playground and fitness or sports field equipment, line item 0032, for each Task Order shall be priced directly from the current Equipment Pricing Schedule (catalog), as follows:

a. Playground or fitness or sports field equipment shall be priced directly from the current Equipment Catalog. The Equipment Catalog is the Contractor’s catalog and/or equipment pricing list. The EPS prices shall remain in effect until 31 December, or the manufacturer’s annual expiration date. The Contractor shall, on or before 31 December of each year (at least three weeks prior is preferred), or the annual expiration date, provide an updated Equipment Catalog. The pricing of the new Equipment Catalog is subject to the Contracting Officers approval and shall become effective the date accepted by the contracting officer.

This process shall be repeated for subsequent years.

b. All Task Order awards shall be awarded and paid in Euros. However, if equipment prices are in US Dollars, the Contracting Officer will apply a currency conversion rate set each year by the government.However, if equipment prices are in a currency other than Euros, in the Equipment Catalog, the Contracting Officer will apply a currency conversion based on the current daily exchange rate on the day of the approved and signed negotiation. Rates will be established by accessing the Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Foreign Exchange Rates, updated weekly at the following link:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/.

c. The total price to be paid for playground equipment shall be based on an the established Equipment Catalog (converted to converted to Euros), less all applicable discounts to the Government, and that in no event shall the price exceed the Contractor’s sales price to its most favored customer for the same item in like quantity, or the current market price, whichever is lower.

d. The discount shall be calculated by multiplying the discount percentage to the Price for Equipment, then subtracting the discount from the Price for Equipment which equals the Equipment Total Price.

Formula:

Price for Equipment – (Discount % x Price for Equipment, sum of price taken from catalog) = Equipment Total Price

Example: €10,000 - (1% x €10,000) = €9,900

6. DESIGN LAYOUT, CERTIFIED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION, AND

CERTIFICATION

Design Layout, Certified Equipment Installation, and Certification (DLCEIC), line item 0033, shall be a percentage applied to each Task Order for playground design layout and playground and/or fitness or sports field equipment installation (including equipment foundation works). The percentage awarded for the base and each option year shall be used to administrate the contract. The DLCEIC percentage shall be considered a fully burdened rate based on the entire effort of work to complete the equipment design layout, installation of equipment including foundations, certify equipment installation, and certification for playgrounds which price will include but is not limited to management services, supervision, personnel, labor (other than hourly rates of Line Item 0001 where allowed), materials, facilities, transportation, designers, ordering equipment, overseeing delivery of equipment, providing certified equipment installers, certification and certifiers of playground equipment, providing the warranty of equipment, and all administrative and clerical costs per Task Order, unless specified elsewhere in this specification. This costs includes as-built and certification/final package turn-over documentation.

To calculate DLCEIC, the awarded percentage for DLCEIC shall be multiplied to the final negotiated Euro amount for the equipment ordered on the Task Order.

To calculate the Task Order amount, the resulting product for DLCEIC and equipment is then added to the total Euro amount of equipment ordered.

Formula:

Price for Equipment + (DLCEIC % x Price for Equipment, sum of price taken from catalog and including reduction for discount) = Total Price for Design and Equipment

€9,900 + (7.5% x €9,900) = €10,642.50

7. SHIPPING

Shipping will be calculated per Task Order and shall be in accordance with FAR 47, FOB Destination. This item is subject to negotiation. If the cost of final delivery is more the contractor can request modification to cover increased costs.

If the final costs is lower than negotiated the government can also request credit.

Final shipping costs proof is due upon delivery of equipment per task order to the

COR.

8. TYPICAL EQUIPMENT LIST DESCRIPTION

All sizes and quantities are approximate and Offeror shall provide a cost for their equipment which is similar in size to the equipment listed in this document and on Section B, Schedule of Services and Rates, “Equipment Price List”..

Equipment Item Number and basic description:

1. Park bench with back, 6-foot long.

2. Park bench without back, 6-foot long.

3. Square sunshade structure, 10-foot x 10 foot, minimum 8-foot clearance from lowest point of the underside of the roof to ground.

4. Square sunshade structure, 15-foot x 15 foot, minimum 8-foot clearance from lowest point of the underside of the roof to ground.

5. Square sunshade structure, 20-foot x 20 foot, minimum 8-foot clearance from the lowest point of the underside of the roof to ground.

6. Pre-school age (2 to 5 years old) climb structure with the minimum following features: two platforms each, with a minimum dimension of 40-inch x 40 inch, including an A-frame type roof for each platform; one set of standard access steps to one of the platforms; one solid bridge structure, a minimum of 5-foot long, including handrails and spanning between platforms; one straight type slide, a minimum of 6-foot long, including four barrier panels each. Structure cost shall include posts for the platforms with a minimum 2-foot clearance from platform to the ground.

7. School age (5 to 12 years old) climb structure with the minimum following features: three platforms each, with a minimum dimension of 40 inch x 40 inch, including an A-frame type roof for each platform; one set of standard access steps to one of the platforms; one solid bridge structure, a minimum of a 5-foot long, including handrails and spanning between platforms; one chain type bridge structure, including handrails and spanning between platforms; one spiral type slide, a minimum of 6-foot long, including six barrier panels each. Structure cost shall include posts for the platforms with a minimum 30-inch clearance from the platform to the ground.

8. Swing set, 7-foot high x 10-foot wide, including two seats for pre-school children.

9. Swing set, 8-foot high x 10-foot wide, including two each seats for school age children.

10. Playhouse, minimum of 5-foot x 5 foot, with solid roof structure, floor, doorway, and two windows.

11. Picnic table, 6-foot long, minimum 24-inch clearance from ground.

12. Picnic table, 4-foot long, minimum 24-inch clearance from ground

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate Contract Line Items (CLIN) prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are reminded, in accordance with FAR 52.215-20, the Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis as required to determine a price fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. The Government will evaluate price for the base awards based on a Fixed Price Schedule to be completed by the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposed fixed prices shall not be exceeded on any future task order proposals; however, Offerors may always propose lower prices if appropriate for any task order.

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the

Solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government

Estimate.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Prices proposed will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the Contracting Officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Price will not be rated, but will be considered in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination of best value. The Government will perform price analysis on all proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work.

f. Section F - Financial Information (e.g., past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, bank name, and POC, etc.).

g. Section G – Defense Base Act Insurance (DBA). The contractor shall certify in the proposal whether DBA insurance is required.

See Section 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements subsection 2.1.3(c).

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SST.

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the…