B.08.02 W912GB23R0013 IEU-23-0005 - Zagreb Hospital, Croatia_Amendment 2.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

Correct language in Price Schedule to include Option Item 0004 in the total.

Add ProjNet Inquiry.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jan-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 W912GB23R0013

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Nov-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Jan-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:

W912GB23R0013

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

Offerors shall provide pricing for all base and option items.

The following items include providing all labor, materials, equipment, and services necessary to complete the design and construction of the work identified in the attached Plans, Specifications, Scope of Work (SOW), Solicitation/Request for Proposal. It also includes preparation of all documents, submittals, and schedules; inspections; and compliance with all technical, quality control, administrative, and safety requirements. All work shall be performed in accordance with these documents. Refer to Specification Section 01 22 00 Price and Payment Procedures for additional description of the work associated with each of the items.

Period of Performance: Refer to clause COMMENCEMENT PROSECUTION AND EXECUTION OF WORK (52.211-10) in the Solicitation/Request for Proposal for the period of performance for all base and option items.

Liquidated Damages: Refer to clause LIQUIDATED DAMAGES-CONSTRUCTION (52.211-12) in the Solicitation/Request for Proposal for the liquidated damages for all base and option items.

Option Items: The Government reserves the right to award the options up to 90 calendar days after contract award.

Item No.

Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount

BASE ITEMS

0001 Demolish and Dispose of Existing Building 30 1 Job $ $

0002 Design and Construct Three Story Building 1 Job $ $

Total of Base Items 0001-0002 $

OPTION ITEMS

0003 Design and Construct Mechanical Ventilation 1 Job $ $

0004 Design and Construct Foldable Fixed Seating with Foldable Seats and Chairs 1 Job $ $

Total of Option Item 0003-0004 $

Total of all Base and Option Items $

EXTENSIONS: All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government.

In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit price will be considered to be the offer.

-- END OF PROPOSAL SCHEDULE --

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATIONS OF OFFERORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors, and 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 award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” on factors 1 & 2 and no less than Neutral on Past Performance (factor 3) must be achieved for all non-price factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on 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. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph of the RFP Section 00 21 00.

The non-price factors are as follows:

1. NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The non-price factors for this solicitation are listed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Schedule Factor 3: Past Performance

2. PRICE FACTOR: The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

Factor 4: Price

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS. Of the non-price factors, Past Performance is the most important. All non-price factors, when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Factor 1: Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to accomplish the SOW included in this solicitation, to assess the Offeror’s perceived ability to implement all requirements of the SOW. Additional consideration may be afforded to an Offeror whose proposed approach:

(i) Demonstrates a reasonable process and rationale for the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner

(ii) Explains how the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with contract provisions as well as the ability and familiarity with conducting business and finances in the Host Nation and regionally near the project location.

(iii) Provides an adequate plan for each of the items specified under RFP Section 00 21 00 for this factor.

(iv) Demonstrates innovative approaches to maximize personnel efficiency or provide cost savings through reduced materials, travel, and labor.

2. Factor 2: Schedule. The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to assess the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the project scope and schedule restrictions that must be considered (e.g., long lead items, site access, manpower availability, critical milestones, etc.). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the interrelated nature of activities in the proposed schedule, the Offeror's overall apparent capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the realism of the schedule.

The Government may use independent judgment concerning typical construction durations, as well as the Offeror’s proposed schedule logic and constraints. Additional consideration may be afforded to an Offeror whose proposed schedule:

(i) Identifies critical milestones throughout, the anticipated overall critical path, and any parallel activities.

(ii) Identifies schedule constraints as they relate to the site access for workers and delivery of materials, long lead items, the Government’s periods for review and approval of submittals, anticipated delays throughout, etc. (including restrictions associated with local holidays and United States holidays)

(iii) Shows a thorough list of activities, during the design, construction, and closeout phases of the project.

(iv) Distinguishes between prime and subcontractor activities if applicable.

3. Factor 3: 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. The Government reserves the right to check any and all cited references to verify supplied information by utilizing any and all sources of past performance information that the Government has at its disposal, to include sources not provided by Offeror.

Additional consideration may be afforded to an Offeror whose record of Past Performance demonstrates a history of successfully completing projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity, and that are located within the country and/or region where the project is located (especially near the project location). Conversely, projects dissimilar in size, scope, and complexity and that are not located within the Host Nation may be considered less relevant.

4. Non-Price Evaluation Ratings. Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

(i) Factor 1 and 2 – Technical Approach and Schedule: The adjectival rating for Technical Approach and Schedule are listed and defined below:

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 very 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.

(ii) Factor 3 – Past Performance: The adjectival ratings for Past Performance are listed and defined below:

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 through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, location, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. A confidence rating will be assigned to each Offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified within the Offeror’s proposal. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

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.

5. Factor 4: Price. Price will be considered in making the Government’s determination of which proposal received in response to this RFP presents the best value. The Government will perform price analysis on all proposals received in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness Offerors are required to price for all items for the base and all options. Failure to submit a price and failure to complete all CLINs in Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration. From a price perspective, an offer’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together (all base and option CLINs).

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.

The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). 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.

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

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 Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

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).

** END OF SOLICITATION PROVISIONS **

(End of Summary of Changes)