B.08.03 Amendment 0001 to RFP W912GB23R0011.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

Request for Proposal (RFP) Phase One for the Design and Construction for EDI POL Increase Capacity at Kecskemet Air Base, Hungary.

Please see Continuation Page for Amendment 0001 details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Mar-2023

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 W912GB23R0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Feb-2023

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-Mar-2023

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:

W912GB23R0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purposes of this Amendment 0001 are to:

1. Provide Hungary Value Added Tax (VAT) Procedures and Additional Considerations for Hungary;

2. Revise FAR Clause 52.236-1 Performance of Work by the Contractor; and,

3. Revise Section 00 22 16 Evaluation Factors for Award.

4. The Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) between the United States and Hungary can be found here: https://www.state.gov/hungary-19-821. The DCA is an agreement between the United States Government and Hungary and grants no rights to third parties.

Changes are identified either in red text, underlines, strikethroughs, or a combination of those techniques.

The due date and time for offers has been extended to April 5, 2023 at 10:00 CEST.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 16-Mar-2023 10:00 AM to 05-Apr-2023 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PHASE 1 OF 2 DB PROCEDURES

Section 00 22 00 Phase ONE of TWO – Design-Build Selection Procedures

A. PHASE ONE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Summary. 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. The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase ONE:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management Approach

2. Specific Submission Requirements, Phase ONE, Volume I, Non-Price Proposal:

Volume I should include a section for each Non-Price factor. Volume I should be organized as follows:

(i) Factor 1, Past Performance. Offerors shall provide a completed performance record for up to five construction projects that have been completed by the Offeror (or substantially completed) within the last six (6) years (from the RFP issue date) that are similar to this project in size, scope, and complexity. Substantially completed is defined as “the Contractor has completed the work and related contract obligations in accordance with the contract documents, such that the Government may enjoy the intended access, occupancy, possession, and use of the entire work without impairment due to incomplete or deficient work, and without interference from the Contractor's completion of remaining work or correction of deficiencies in completed work.” Projects submitted that were completed beyond six years will be evaluated, but may be considered less relevant.

Substantially complete is defined as project completion of at least 80% of the awarded contract scope/amount. The offeror must explain how the project has been calculated or determined to have met 80% completion.

Offerors may also provide a completed performance record for up to five design projects that have been completed by the Offeror (or the Offeror’s separate designer if applicable and the Offeror has selected a design firm to partner with). The Government will evaluate a maximum of ten projects (with at least two construction projects and two design projects).

Offerors shall complete the Past Performance Information sheet, which is provided by RFP attachment 1. The experience Information sheet is limited to three pages per project, minimum 10 point size font. Offerors must specifically cite the work they were responsible for under each project (i.e., if the Offeror was a JV on a prior project but not submitting as a JV for this project or if it utilized subcontractors to perform work on prior projects, the Offeror must provide a description of only the work that the Offeror performed). Separate contracts (or IDIQ task orders) may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. Additionally, Offerors are cautioned to provide enough detail for an assessment to be made by the evaluators.

If available, a completed record from the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be accepted for evaluation under this factor. An interim completed CPARS rating will be considered if a final record is not available.

If a completed CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). A blank PPQ form is provided as a solicitation attachment 2. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

PPQ Instructions: If a CPARS record is unavailable, 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 shall be submitted with the proposal, and shall not exceed four (4) pages each. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall 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 solicitation. 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. Offerors are encouraged to request narratives to support PPQ ratings.

(ii) Factor 2, Management Approach. The Offeror shall provide a plan that describes the Offeror’s Management Approach to executing the project. The Management Approach shall not exceed twenty pages. If more than twenty pages are submitted, only the first twenty pages will be reviewed and evaluated. Only the title page, organization chart, and table of contents will not be counted toward the page count. The Offeror shall provide a Management Approach, which shall include at a minimum, the following:

(a) A graphical description (organizational chart) and narrative of its planned organization structure for successful execution of the contract. This should include a description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative must:

identify all offices involved in this contract identify 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) A narrative discussion of how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team and discuss quality control lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

(c) A narrative discussion of how the Offeror will ensure safety consistently across the team and discuss safety lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

(d) A narrative discussion of the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this RFP, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering.

Identify the significant aspects of the work that are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Offeror and all key sub-contractors. Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor.

(e) A narrative discussion of the Offeror’s criteria for selection of the

Designer(s) of Record for types of work to be accomplished under this contract.

(f) A narrative discussion of the Offeror’s knowledge of engineering and design in Hungary to include coordination with Hungarian authorities (to include any certification or registration requirements) and the ability to communicate in Hungarian and English.

(g) A narrative discussion of any additional and/or unique management advantages contracting with their firm provides to the Government, if applicable.

1. Specific Submission Requirements, Phase ONE, Volume II – Administrative

Matters. Volume II should be organized as follows

(a) Cover Letter. Offerors shall submit a cover letter 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.

(b) Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments). Offerors shall submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 1442 included in this Solicitation. If applicable, Offerors may also submit a completed SF 30 for each Solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments or use the SF1442 Block 19.

(c) SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the following:

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

(2) 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”.

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

(d) JV agreements. If the Offeror is a joint venture (JV), it must provide evidence of a legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all members of the JV. A searchable copy of the JV Agreement in English and signed by all JV members shall be provided as part of the proposal in Factor 1 Past Performance. The JV Agreement shall include the following:

(1) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

i. The relationship of the JV parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

v. 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.

vi. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

vii. Identification of party having overall control of the JV.

viii. A statement that the JV partners are jointly and severally liable under the contract.

(2) Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are either employees of the individual JV parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the JV.

(3) If one of the JV parties possesses relevant experience and/or past performance, the experience and/or past performance of that firm will be considered as the experience and/or past performance of the JV. Each member of the JV may submit project examples for Factor 1, but the total submitted by the individual JV members shall not exceed three such examples. In addition to the JV Agreement, the Factor 1 proposal of a JV Offeror shall clearly address the experience of each of the JV members and the division of the members' responsibilities/duties on any ongoing or previous projects. The proposal shall also include the DUNS numbers of each JV partner.

(e) 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. The Offeror may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of a JV member, a team member, a subcontractor, or an affiliate (collectively referred to in this RFP as “Team Members”) if that experience/past performance relates to the services described for that party in the team arrangement agreement or the letter of commitment. Consistent with FAR 9.104-4 the Government also may consider the responsibility of such entities or persons when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Offerors are reminded that regardless of any teaming arrangements, the prime contractor will be fully responsible for contract performance. Also, in the event that the Offeror is awarded the resultant contract, there can be no substitution of any proposed team member, subcontractor, or key personnel identified in a teaming agreement or letter of commitment without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. Approval or disapproval of a substitute entity or person is a matter within the sole discretion of the contracting officer, who will consider factors such as whether the proposed substitute appears to be equally qualified and whether the substitution is the best interests of the Government and project execution. In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as he/she deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion. Teaming agreements and sub-contractor commitment letters are not required, but when they are not provided with the proposal, the experience and/or past performance of any affiliate, team members or subcontractors will not be considered for purposes of source selection evaluation:

(1) Teaming Agreements. For a teaming agreement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must include a searchable teaming agreement in English that reflects a binding commitment from all parties and that has been signed by all team members. The Teaming Agreement must have full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement). Each non-Offeror member of a team may submit project examples for Factor 1, but the total submitted by such team members shall not exceed three (3) such examples. Furthermore, past performance of such team members will be considered only to the extent it is similar to what they will perform on this Contract.

(2) Key Subcontractor Commitment Letters. For a prime-subcontractor arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must have a commitment letter signed by both the prime and the subcontractor that includes all of the substantive portions of the sample provided in the RFP Attachment. The proposal must also reflect that the Offeror as the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor. Furthermore, past performance of committed subcontractors will be considered only to the extent it is similar to what the subcontractor commits to perform on this Contract.

(3) Affiliates. The term “affiliate” is defined in FAR 2.101. For an affiliate’s past experience/past performance to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must demonstrate a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation.

This commitment, the nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation on this Contract shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. The requirements of in sub-paragraph 1 above for teaming agreements shall also apply to such affiliate agreements.

B. PHASE ONE EVALUATION APPROACH

1. General. The Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate the non-price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase ONE submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. 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 ONE.

However, the Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase TWO.

The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit phase TWO proposals.

Selecting only the most highly rated offerors to advance to phase two is not equivalent to establishing a competitive range pursuant to FAR Part 15. Under FAR Part 36 procedures, the evaluation of phase one proposals does not permit the consideration of cost or price as an evaluation factor. Rather, the contracting officer selects the most highly qualified offerors--based only on non-price factors--to submit phase two proposals. Consistent with these procedures, price proposals are submitted by offerors and evaluated by the agency at phase two. Only phase two of a design-build procurement is conducted in accordance with FAR part 15, including the evaluation of technical and price proposals. In other words, the selection of a limited number of offerors from phase one of a FAR subpart 36.3 competition to continue to phase two does not constitute, and is not equivalent to, the establishment of a competitive range.

2. Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. Of the non-price factors (Factors 1-

2), Factor 1 - Past Performance is approximately equal to Factor 2 - Management Approach.

3. Definitions. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

a. Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

b. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

e. 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.

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

g. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

4. Ratings. Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation for each factor.

(i) Factor 1 Past Performance. The adjectival ratings for Past Performance are listed and defined below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

(ii) Factor 2 Management Approach. The adjectival ratings for Management Approach are listed and defined below:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Adjectival

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to 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 have high potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

3. Detailed Phase ONE Evaluation Approach.

(iii) Factor 1 Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance records on other recent and relevant contracts to assess what level of expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the effort required by this RFP.

(a) Past Performance Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired by this

RFP. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant. Past performance records that are similar in size, scope, and, complexity will be considered more relevant. Conversely, projects dissimilar in size, scope and complexity will be considered less relevant.

Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum cost of $15,000,000.

Projects considered similar in scope will be vertical construction projects, such as Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) facilities and infrastructure, performed within the European Union.

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

i. Projects that demonstrate POL facilities and infrastructure.

ii. Projects constructed in locations with limited or confined work areas and on-going operations.

iii. Projects that demonstrate work in the European Union Hungary.

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

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

(b) Performance Confidence Assessment: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed. The Government reserves the right to check any and all cited references to verify the supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

(c) Other Sources. In addition to the information submitted by the Offeror in its proposal, 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 (N)CAGE/Unique Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, 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. 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.

(d) The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The 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. All projects submitted, construction and design, will go towards the overall Confidence rating for this factor.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.304(a)(2)(iv)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror should affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance. During the best value tradeoff process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

(iv) Factor 2 Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach for accomplishing work under the contract for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with this project and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements. The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the management approach:

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

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

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

(d) Describes the Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

quality control (design and construction) safety staffing (design and construction) subcontractor management (design and construction).

(e) Demonstrates a thorough knowledge of engineering, design, and construction in Hungary to include coordination with Hungarian authorities.

(f) Demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Hungary and the ability to meet the requirements along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in Hungarian and English.

SECTION 00 72 00 - GENERAL CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR (APR 1984)

The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least fifteen (15) percent of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract. This percentage may be reduced by a supplemental agreement to this contract if, during performing the work, the Contractor requests a reduction and the Contracting Officer determines that the reduction would be to the advantage of the Government.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)