FY24 POLAND MATOC PPC Slides_FINAL_05102023.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

FY23/24 POLAND DB-DBB

MATOC

W912GB23R0041

Presented by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District 05 October 2023

Fraport Conference Center, Germany

1. Mute/silence phone

2. Avoid sidebar discussions

3. No technical discussion will be held in this forum

GROUND RULES AND PROCEDURES

USACE TEAM INTRODUCTIONS

Jennifer Aldridge Program Manager

Regina Schowalter Office of Counsel

Gina Petrino Contracting Officer

Bjorn Hale Contract Specialist

Tiffany Erwin Program Manager

AGENDA

Welcome / Introductory Remarks

About the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Europe District

Potential FY24+ MATOC Projects in Poland

U.S. Procurement Law & Overseas Contracting

Doing Business with the USACE: Part 1 Systems and Registrations

Doing Business with the USACE: Part 2 Source Selection

POLAND MATOC Solicitation

USACE Requirements

Q&A Session / Closing Remarks

Information Provided During the Pre-proposal Conference

Any remarks or explanations provided during this presentation today are for general information and will not change the terms and conditions of any resultant solicitation or subsequent contract.

Any solicitation questions must be submitted in ProjNet for Government responses.

DISCLAIMER

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mission: USACE provides vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure our Nation, energize the economy, and reduce risks of disasters.

USACE is globally engaged and regionally aligned

NAU Commander: Colonel Daniel Kent Headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany Six broad portfolios: Enduring Base Support, Forward Basing and Posture, Medical Facilities, School Facilities, Defense Security Cooperation, and Missile Defense.

Europe District AOR (1 of 2) – MILCON Workload

BEL Belgium BGR Bulgaria CZE Czech Republic DNK Denmark EST Estonia DEU Germany HUN Hungary ITA Italy LVA Latvia LTU Lithuania LUX Luxembourg NLD Netherlands NOR Norway POL Poland ROU Romania SVN Slovakia TUR Turkey

Europe District MILCON projects (past, present, and future) are located in 16 countries throughout the EUCOM AOR:

Europe District AOR (2 of 2) – Non-MILCON Workload

ALB Albania ARM Armenia AZE Azerbaijan GEO Georgia HVR Croatia ISR Israel XKX Kosovo MKD North Macedonia SRB Serbia UKR Ukraine

EUCOM Non-MILCON Workload (not already included in MILCON)

AFRICOM

Non-MILCON

Workload BEN Benin BFA Burkina Fasso CMR Cameroon TCD Chad DJI Djibuti

GAB Gabon GHA Ghana KEN Kenya LSO Lesotho MWI Malawi MOZ Mozambique NER Niger NGA Nigeria STP Sao Tome SEN Senegal SLE Sierra Leone ZAF South Africa SWZ Swaziland TGO Togo TUN Tuniaia

PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

Design-Bid-Build

Design-Build

Central Area Office – Sembach, Germany Ramstein AFB RO

Spangdahlem AFB PO Kaiserslautern RO

Germersheim PO* Baumholder RO

BENELUX RO - Mons, Belgium Brunssum PO Netherlands Brussels PO – Brussels Dülmen PO - Germany

Hessen Area Office –Wiesbaden, Germany Wiesbaden RO

CIC PO

Grafenwoehr RO

Ansbach PO Hohenfels PO Garmish PO

Stuttgart RO

District HQ – Wiesbaden Special Projects RO

(AFRICOM/EUCOM)

Expeditionary Area Office*

ROBMC (Hospital) Area Office*

Poland MD Area Office (Redzikowo, Poland)

•500+ Employees •25% Local Nationals •More than 30 field offices in 14 countries

Israel Area Office Central RO (Herzliya) South RO (Beer sheva) Infantry Base RO*

RO: Resident Office PO: Project Office *Planned Office

Northern Europe Area Office (Poznan, Poland) Powidz RO – Powidz, Poland Riga RO – Riga, Latvia

Tallinn PO – Tallinn, Estonia

Southern Europe Area Office (Vicenza, Italy) Romania RO – Mihail Kogalnicheanu (MK)

Campia Turzii PO – Romania Romania MD PO – Deveselu, Romania NSTA PO – Bulgaria

Mediterranean RO – Vicenza, Italy Aviano PO Livorno PO TUSEG – Incirlik AB, Turkey Caucasus PO – Tbilisi, Georgia

Hungary RO – Budapest*

EUROPE DISTRICT OFFICES

12FY23/24+ POLAND WORKLOAD

ANTICIPATED MATOC TASK ORDERS

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW &

OVERSEAS CONTRACTING

Regina Schowalter

OFFICE OF COUNSEL

• US Procurement Regulations and Important Clauses

• Prime Contractor Project Management

• US Contracting Officers

• Joint Ventures, Teaming Agreements, Key Subcontractors, Affiliates

• Defense Base Act Insurance

• Taxes and VAT

• Bonding Requirements

• Questions

OVERVIEW

Contracts are awarded and executed under United States procurement laws and regulations.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) http://acquisition.gov

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) http://acquisition.gov

Army FAR Supplement (AFARS) http://acquisition.gov

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW AND REGULATIONS

DFARS 252.233-7001

This contract shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the United States of America. By the execution of this contract, the Contractor expressly agrees to waive any rights to invoke the jurisdiction of local national courts where this contract is performed and agrees to accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and the United States Court of Federal Claims for the hearing and determination of any and all disputes that may arise under the Disputes clause of this contract.

CHOICE OF LAW (OVERSEAS)

DISPUTES AND CLAIMS REGULATIONS

41 United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapt. 71 - Contract Disputes

FAR Subpart 33.2, Disputes and Appeals

FAR 52.233-1, Disputes

In Specification Binder – RFP Attachment The contractor agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States Government against all claims and suits of whatsoever nature arising under or incidental to the performance of this contract by any subcontractor against the United States Government. The Contractor further agrees to waive his rights to bring suit or other legal action against the United States Government, except as provided in the Disputes clause of this contract and in the United States Federal Statutes.

IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCESS

• The U.S. Government is very concerned that laborers on our projects receive working conditions and wages in accordance with Host Nation laws and regulations.

• “Compliance With Local Labor Laws,” provides that contractors must comply with all host nation labor laws and regulations including laws and regulations relating to hours of work and compensation.

• Be aware that this applies to subcontractors as well as the prime contractor – the prime contractor is responsible for ensuring that all workers on the project are properly paid, regardless of whether the workers are employed directly by the prime contractor, principal subcontractor or subcontractors at any tier.

COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LABOR LAWS

• The U.S. Government contracts are with the prime contractors.

• USACE expects the prime contractor to actively manage the project and ensure the work meets contract requirements and the U.S. Government will hold the prime contractors responsible for contract execution.

• When issues arise, the U.S. Government deals with primes, not subcontractors.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Solicitation Specifications Binder covers contractor responsibilities and obligations:

– Adequately manning and staffing the project.

– The contractor assumes the risk and cost of obtaining the necessary labor to execute the project.

– The U.S. Government will not compensate you if labor turns out to be more expensive than you expected. This is true even if the reason for the added expense is a change in the host nation (HN) laws/regulations that increases your labor cost.

– The U.S. Government cannot influence the HN regarding visas or work permits and may not provide any assistance.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT (CONT.)

U.S. CONTRACTING OFFICERS

• The U.S. acts through warranted Contracting Officers (KOs).

• Contracting Officers are assisted by Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) and Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) acting within the bounds of authority delegated to them by the Contracting Officer.

• Only a warranted Contracting Officer (or designated ACO) may provide direction to a contractor on a U.S. Government contract.

23JOINT VENTURES, TEAMING AGREEMENTS, KEY

SUBCONTRACTORS, AFFILIATES

• What if the Prime is a host nation company with a lot of experience, but no or very little experience with the U.S. Government or the U.S. Department of Defense?

• What if the Prime has a lot of U.S. Department of Defense experience, but no or little experience working in the Host Nation?

–To be more competitive in terms of experience, applicants often form Joint Ventures (JVs). In JVs, the two (or more) companies become the Prime and the Government deals directly with the designated point of contact for the JV. Each JV member must agree to be jointly and severally liable to the US Government and responsible for all work performed (liability and responsibility for work is not tied to the members’ contributions as far as the US Government is concerned).

JOINT VENTURES

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture (JV), the experience and past performance for each joint venture partner will be considered for the joint venture entity. JVs shall submit the following:

– A legally binding JV agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the JV.

– Shall identify the chief executive of each entity identified

– Shall be translated into English

– Shall include a detailed statement outlining, in terms of percentages, which JV member is responsible for what aspects of the project, the relationship of the JV in terms of ownership/capital contribution, profit/loss sharing; and which party has overall control, etc.

– Note: The Contract will provide that JV members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract. The JV Agreement must also state this.

JOINT VENTURES See Request for Proposal (RFP) for exact Instructions

- If forming a JV is not an option, contractors may receive credit for the past performance and capabilities of a teaming partner (i.e., a subcontractor, formal teaming partner or an affiliate) but only if the proposal includes a Commitment Letter with the substantive terms of the Solicitation attachment. Do not add or delete any terms to that attachment. The Government must be able to assess the past experience of the teaming partner, so at least one of the 5 projects you submit for past performance should include a relevant and recent past project for that team member.

-The Commitment Letter or proposal must explain the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, and a full description of roles and responsibilities of team members). The “credit” given will depend on the nature and extent of the proposed participation of the teaming partner.

TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS & LETTERS OF

COMMITMENT

RFP ATTACHMENT - COMMITMENT LETTERS

LETTER OF COMMITMENT SAMPLE

See Solicitation - Evaluation Factors for Award

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a subcontractor, team member, or affiliate (defined in FAR 2.101), the appropriate Letter of Commitment below must be completed with all information required, signed by authorized representatives of all parties and submitted with the proposal. Offerors should select the appropriate Commitment Letter sample from the following alternatives as applicable:

- Alternative 1 Subcontractor Commitment

- Alternative 2 Team Member Commitment

- Alternative 3 Affiliate Commitment

ALTERNATIVE 1 – KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

(PRIME CONTRACTOR LETTERHEAD)

US Army Corps of Engineers (Insert Date) Europe District Konrad Adenauer Ring 39, Box 7 ATTN: Contracting Officer 65187 Wiesbaden, Germany

Subject: Letter of Commitment for Solicitation No. XXXXXXXXXXX, Project Name

In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded a contract under the subject solicitation, Prime Contractor X commits to using Subcontractor Y as a subcontractor for the services described in this Letter of Commitment and Subcontractor Y agrees to perform as a subcontractor to Prime Contractor X for those services.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – KEY SUBCONTRACTORS, CONT. 1

Prime Contractor X will perform as the prime contractor while Subcontractor Y will perform the following services as a subcontractor under the resultant contract:

(Describe the work to be performed by the subcontractor, e.g., electrical, mechanical, civil, etc.)

Prime Contractor X may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of Subcontractor Y as they relate to the services described in this Letter of Commitment.

In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded the resultant contract, another firm cannot be substituted for Subcontractor Y without prior written approval of the contracting officer. Approval or disapproval of a substitute subcontractor is a matter within the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, considering such factors as whether the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equally qualified and the substitution to be in the best interests of project execution.

In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as the contracting officer deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion.

In the event Prime Contractor X is not awarded a contract under the subject solicitation, this Letter of Commitment is null and void.

Signatures: ______________________ __________________ John D. Prime Hans Richard Authorized Representative Authorized Representative Prime Contractor X Subcontractor Y Title Title

ALTERNATIVE 1 – KEY SUBCONTRACTORS, CONT. 2

(PRIME CONTRACTOR LETTERHEAD)

US Army Corps of Engineers (Insert Date) Europe District Konrad Adenauer Ring 39, Box 7 ATTN: Contracting Officer 65187 Wiesbaden, Germany

Subject: Letter of Commitment for Solicitation No. XXXXXXXXXX, In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded a contract under the subject solicitation (Contract), Prime Contractor X commits to using Team Member Y for the services or other contributions described in this Letter of Commitment and Team Member Y commits to perform such services or to make such contributions in furtherance of Prime Contractor X's performance of the Contract.

Prime Contractor X will perform as the prime contractor while the Team Member Y will

ALTERNATIVE 2 - COMMITMENT WITH TEAM MEMBER

ALTERNATIVE 2 - COMMITMENT WITH TEAM MEMBER, CONT. 1

perform the following services or make the following contributions in furtherance of Prime Contractor X's performance of the Contract:

(Describe the type[s] of contributions and services to be performed by Team Member Y, e.g., electrical, mechanical, civil, design, services; or the specific equipment or types and quantities of Team Member Y personnel who will be committed to work on this Contract.)

Prime Contractor X may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of Team Member Y to the extent they relate to the services or contributions described in this Letter of Commitment.

In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded the Contract, another firm cannot be substituted for Team Member Y without prior written approval of the contracting officer. Approval or disapproval of a substitute firm is a matter within the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, considering such factors as whether the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equally qualified and the substitution to be in the best interests of project execution.

ALTERNATIVE 2 - COMMITMENT WITH TEAM MEMBER, CONT. 2

In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as the contracting officer deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion.

In the event Prime Contractor X is not awarded the Contract, this Letter of Commitment is null and void.

John D. Prime Hans Richard Authorized Representative Authorized Representative Prime Contractor X Team Member Y

• During Source Selection, prime contractors can receive credit for the experience of an “Affiliate.” The term “Affiliate” is defined in the U.S. regulations, but typically it refers to a parent corporation or a “sister” company (both subsidiaries of the same parent corporation.)

• If the prime wants to rely on the experience of an Affiliate, a Letter of Commitment is required demonstrating a firm commitment that the Affiliate will participate meaningfully in terms of roles and responsibilities in the performance of the contract. This commitment letter must be signed by authorized representatives of both the prime and its Affiliate.

AFFILIATES

ALTERNATIVE 3 – AFFILIATES

(PRIME CONTRACTOR LETTERHEAD)

US Army Corps of Engineers (Insert Date) Europe District Konrad Adenauer Ring 39, Box 7 ATTN: Contracting Officer 65187 Wiesbaden, Germany

Subject: Letter of Commitment for Solicitation No. XXXXXXXXXX, In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded a contract under the subject solicitation (Contract), Prime Contractor X commits to using Affiliate Y for the services or other contributions described in this Letter of Commitment and Affiliate Y commits to perform such services or to make such contributions in furtherance of Prime Contractor X's performance of the Contract.

ALTERNATIVE 3 - AFFILIATES, CONT. 1

Prime Contractor X will perform as the prime contractor while the Affiliate Y will perform the following services or make the following contributions in furtherance of Prime Contractor X's performance of the Contract:

(Describe the type[s] of contributions and services to be performed by the Affiliate Y, e.g., electrical, mechanical, civil, design, services; or the specific equipment or types and quantities of affiliate personnel who will be committed to work on this Contract. There must be sufficient detail provided here about Affiliate Y's contributions to the Contract effort to enable the Government to assess if the Affiliate Y's participation will be meaningful enough to warrant crediting Prime Contractor X with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of Affiliate Y).

Prime Contractor X may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of Affiliate Y to the extent they relate to the services or contributions described in this Letter of Commitment.

In the event that Prime Contractor X is awarded the Contract, another firm cannot be substituted for Affiliate Y without prior written approval of the contracting officer. Approval or disapproval of a

ALTERNATIVE 3 - AFFILIATES, CONT. 2

substitute firm is a matter within the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, considering such factors as whether the contracting officer considers the proposed substitute to be equally qualified and the substitution to be in the best interests of project execution.

In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as the contracting officer deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion.

In the event Prime Contractor X is not awarded the Contract, this Letter of Commitment is null and void.

John D. Prime Hans Richard Authorized Representative Authorized Representative Prime Contractor X Affiliate Y

38TEAMING AGREEMENTS, KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

& AFFILIATES

• The ability to get “credit” for such teaming arrangements has its limits, however. Past performance is still a factor and reliance on Teaming Arrangements for past performance does not relieve the Offeror of its obligation to demonstrate its own past performance on the portions of the contract it will perform or manage.

• Also, whether the teams have worked together before successfully will be considered (this is true for new JV’s as well). If there is no prior experience together, be sure to address in the Management factor why that will not present any risk to successful performance.

• Since the U.S. Government will rely on the past performance of JV members, teaming partners, key subcontractors, key personnel and Affiliates in deciding which proposal offers the best value, the inability or failure to use those same entities or personnel in the manner proposed could result in a termination of the contract.

• In general, substitutions are not guaranteed. The Contracting Officer must determine if the substituted entity or person is comparable to the entity or person proposed in terms of experience and capabilities. If they are not, the Contracting Officer has the discretion to decline the proposed substitution.

WHAT IF A SUBSTITUTION IS NEEDED?

• Poland does not have a waiver from compliance with DBA insurance requirements for workers who are covered by Poland compulsory workers’ compensation laws.

• DBA insurance will be required on awarded task orders.

DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE

• Typically, US Government requires 100% Performance and Payment bonds issued by approved US surety companies (See FAR 28.102)

Those approved surety companies are often unwilling to bond projects outside of the US. If specifically allowed in the RFP (which it is here), a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and after award a Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) may be submitted instead of the 100% performance and payment bonds.

• Other surety alternatives are also available as set forth in the RFP Note: If a Joint Venture (JV), the Bank Letter of Assurance must cover the JV, not just one member of the JV.

BONDING REQUIREMENTS

TAX EXEMPTIONS

United States contractors when working solely for the purpose of supporting the U.S. Government in Poland shall not be subject to any form of income or profits tax by the Polish Government.

Importation of articles by any contractors acting on behalf of the U.S. shall be free of any import duties or taxes.

• Articles and services acquired by contractors acting on behalf of the U.S. should not be subject to direct or indirect taxation, to include value added taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes or similar taxes.

VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

QUESTIONS?

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS: PART 1

• General Information: Registrations & ID Numbers

• Unique Entity ID

• Cage / NCAGE Code

• SAM Registration

• Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE)

OVERVIEW

REGISTRATIONS & IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

System Description Website General Timeline

Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)

Unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of your business https://www.sam.gov/ 7-10 business days

CAGE /

NCAGE

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code https://cage.dla.mil/Ho me/UsageAgree https://eportal.nspa.na to.int/AC135Public/def ault.aspx

7-10 business days

SAM System for Award Management (SAM) is a registration database required for all US Federal Government Contracts and where you will find opportunities.

https://www.sam.gov/ 2 weeks to go active **Review Alerts to

See Possible Delays**

What is Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) (formerly DUNS) It’s a unique identification number that identifies your entity registration in SAM.gov and used in other federal award systems (FPDS, FSRS, eSRS, FAPIIS, CPARS).

DUNS Number to Unique Entity ID transitioned in APRIL 2022 - DUNS Number is no longer valid.

How does my firm obtain a UEI? Go to sam.gov obtain a UEI at no cost.

UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER

The CAGE or NCAGE code is a required piece of data for registering in the System for Award Management (SAM).

• What is a CAGE Code? The Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code is a unique identifier assigned to suppliers to various government or defense agencies, as well as to government agencies themselves and also various organizations.

• How does your company obtain a CAGE Code? If you are a vendor located inside the United States, one can be obtained by visiting: https://cage.dla.mil/

• What is an NCAGE Code? The NATO Codification System (NCS) was established in 1954. In order to differentiate between the U.S. and NATO systems, CAGE was referred to as NATO COMMERCIAL and GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY CODE (NCAGE) in the NCS community.

• How does your company obtain an NCAGE Code? If you are a vendor located outside the United States, one can be obtained by visiting https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/default.aspx

CAGE AND NCAGE CODE

REQUEST NCAGE:

https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/CageTool

NATO Support Agency (NSPA):

https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/scage/CageList.aspx

NCAGE PORTAL

• Provisions/clauses require all contractors to register and maintain an active SAM entity registration in order to be eligible for contract awards, as prescribed by the regulation at FAR Subpart 4.11.

Solicitations Provision: FAR 52.204-7 SAM or FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items Contract Clause: FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance or 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions--

Commercial Items.

• Contractors are required to update SAM registration ANNUALLY.

• In order to eligible for contract award, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

SAM REGISTRATION

The PIEE Solicitation Module establishes a more automated and secure process for capturing solicitations, attachments, and responses from industry

Replaces DoD SAFE

See Attachment 9 for Instructions How to Submit a Proposal

PROCUREMENT INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE

ENVIRONMENT (PIEE)

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS: PART 2

• Source Selection Process

• Understanding the Solicitation

• Preparing your Proposal

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS PART 2: OVERVIEW

FY23/24 POLAND DB/DBB MATOC

W912GB23R0041

Develop Requirement & Conduct Market Research Develop Acquisition Strategy/Plan Government Issues Solicitation (via PIEE) – Phase I

Pre-proposal conferences/Site Visits may be held - Phase I PPC 05 OCTOBER 2023 Offerors submit questions and Government may amend solicitation

Offerors Submit Phase I Proposals Government Evaluates Phase I Proposals Most Highly Qualified Offerors Invited to Phase II (Decision Point) Offerors Submit Phase II Proposals Government Evaluates Phase II Proposals If Necessary, Establish Competitive Range, Hold Discussions, &

Request & Receive Final Proposal Revisions Evaluate Final Proposals & Make Source Selection Decision Contract Award Debriefings, as requested

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW

Currently Due:

25 OCT

MAGNITUDES of CONSTRUCTION

The magnitudes are provided in FAR 36.204 and DFARS 236.204

Typical Language in the Solicitations:

Per FAR 36.204, the estimated price range of task orders on this contract is between $250,000.00 and $15,000,000.00 (FAR Clause 52.216-19). The total dollar value of this contract is not to exceed $98,000,000.00.

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS

Less than $25,000 Between $25,000 and $100,000 Between $100,000 and $250,000 Between $250,000 and $500,000 Between $500,000 and $1,000,000 Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 Between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 More than $10,000,000

• The typical Request for Proposal (RFP) is a significantly long document that reads like a legal text, and has very specific requirements. Make sure you thoroughly read and understand the proposal submission requirements and process.

• You may be disqualified for submitting a proposal that does not meet all of the requirements.

• Offerors are advised to provide their BEST PROPOSAL in the first submission.

UNDERSTANDING THE SOLICITATION PACKAGE

AND PREPARING THE PROPOSAL

Offerors shall submit inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. See the solicitation for ProjNet registration instructions.

Bidder Inquiry Key:

IUB8R7-25BR94

Bidder Inquiries will be closed to new inquiries on 15 October 2023 in order to appropriately respond and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES VIA PROJNET

Ref: Section 00 21 00 – Instructions to Offerors

Select USACE

Enter Email

• Task Orders

– Minimum Task Order $250,000.00

– Maximum Task Order is limited to $15,000,000.00. However, smaller and larger dollar value projects may be considered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

• Total maximum ordering value $98,000,000.00 over five (5) Years and 6 months

– Base Ordering Period: Sixty Months (5 years)

– IAW FAR 52.217-8 – 6 Month Extension

W912GB23R0041 FY23 POLAND DB-DBB MATOC

• Electronic Proposals. All responses to this announcement shall be submitted electronically via PIEE. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email is not authorized.

• Electronic submissions shall be via PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil/. See Attachment 9 - PIEE Instructions for Proposal Submittal

• File Name. Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

“W912GB23R0041_Firmname_Volume I_Past Performance.pdf” “W912GB23R0041_Firmname_Volume I_Management Approach.pdf” “W912GB23R0041_Firmname_Volume I_Pro Forma Information/Admin Matters.pdf”

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Ref: Section 00 21 16 Phase One Instructions to Offerors

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions.

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be no smaller than 10-point font or larger. Pages shall be letter sized in A4 format (210mm x 297mm) or 8.5in x 11in. Pages larger than A4 formatting or 8.5in x 11in, such as papers requiring foldouts, etc. will be counted as two pages.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Submission & Deadline.

Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document – (currently) 25 October 2023 by 1000 Central European Time (local time). (REF: Page 1 of RFP in the SF1442)

The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/ delivery time & date on the Government’s server.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Offerors should time their proposal submission with prudence by not waiting until the last day—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Volume I: Factor 1 – Past Performance. Provide up to 5 projects substantially complete (at least 80%) meeting the recency and relevancy definitions.

Volume I: Factor 2 - Management Approach.

- Provide an Organization Chart depicting the planned organization structure for successful execution of the contract.

- Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s proposed management and technical approach for executing the contract per the detailed requirements herein.

- Only the first 15 pages will be read and evaluated. (The 15-page limitation does Not include the Organization Chart.)

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL FORMAT

Volume I: Facor 1: Past Performance Volume I: Factor 2: Management Approach

Volume II: Pro Forma Information / Administrative Matters (Not Rated) **NOTE: If an Offeror fails to submit required documentation listed below, that may result in a determination of non-compliance and removal from consideration.

Section A – Cover Letter Section B – Standard Form SF1442 and Amendments, if applicable **NOTE**: The party with authority to bind the JV shall sign the SF1442 and the required surety documents for the Phase TWO proposal. Make sure to include as part of Volume II.

Section C – Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Section D – Financial Evidence, Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Section E – Pre-Award Information, SAM Registration, Representation & Certifications

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL FORMAT

Submit up to five (5) projects meeting the following definition for recent and relevant projects --recency and relevancy are elements of Past Performance. For Factor 1 evaluation purposes, the definition of a recent and relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

Recency: Past Performance projects submitted shall be projects that have been completed or substantially completed within the past six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) and must be similar in size and scope to the work solicited under this MATOC.

Relevancy. Past Performance projects for relevancy is not rated; however, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size and magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicited MATOC.

**USG (U.S. Government) considers substantially complete at 80% or greater completion**

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Trade-off Process (FAR 15.101-1) In the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Factors include:

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Technical Approach Price Factor Factor 4 – Price – SEED Project Price

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors.

Phase ONE evaluation ratings will continue into Phase TWO. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors 1-3, when combined, are approximately equal to price. In addition, all non-price factors are approximately equal to one another in importance.

SOURCE SELECTION APPROACH

The SSEB will evaluate Offerors’ past performance that demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under this Solicitation.

Offeror Shall Submit:

• Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects substantially complete (at least 80%) or completed by the Prime

Contractor/Offeror (or by a JV member or other team member with a signed Commitment Letter – see Attachment 5) within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope.

• Of the projects submitted, at least two (2) projects must have been performed by the Offeror as the prime.

Projects must demonstrate that the Offeror has performed at least 15% of the cost of that project contract and at least two (2) DB projects.

• Projects considered similar in scope and shall be DB or DBB construction of new horizontal or vertical facilities and/or major building renovations that may include but is not limited to: road and pavement repair, minor construction, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, concrete work, and environmental (hazardous waste abatement and disposal) remedial work.

• Projects must have a minimum price of 250,000.00 Euros and a maximum price of 15,000,000.00 Euros.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates the following (list is not in order of importance):

1. Projects that demonstrate past performance in Poland

2. Projects that demonstrate working on military bases with the United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Europe District Area of Responsibility (AOR) -- AFRICOM, EUCOM and Israel. (Amend as of 05OCT2023)

• **NOTE: 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.

The SSEB will then evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine how likely it is that Offerors will be successful when performing task orders under the awarded contract.

**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 subcontractors or JV partners the Offeror may have submitted. Key focus areas will include the following (see CPARS or PPQ Form):

• Quality

• Schedule/Timeliness of Performance

• Customer Satisfaction

• Management/Personnel/Labor

• Cost/Financial Management

• Safety/Security

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT)

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.

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 must 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.

For Past Performance, Offerors will receive one rating for Factor 1, a Confidence Rating, as detailed below.

• Past Performance Relevancy. The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal. Relevancy is Not rated. SSEB will determine how relevant a project is when compared to the scope, size and magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicited MATOC.

• Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on those projects (CPARS or PPQs). The Government reserves the right to check any and all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In conducting the confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one overall confidence assessment rating.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE - CONT)

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.

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 must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

FACTOR 1: CONFIDENCE RATING

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

1. Provide an Organization Chart depicting the overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters office to the Offeror’s project site office(s). (see Solicitation page 23-24, 6.1.2 #1a-d)

2. Provide a narrative that demonstrates an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the U.S. Government issued under this MATOC. Clearly and concisely describe the Offeror's team, how members of the team, including subcontractors (if applicable), will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of future task orders.

The Management Approach Shall Include and Address the following:

a. Demonstrate the ability to manage multiple actions projects simultaneously.

b. the Offeror’s knowledge of engineering, design and local permitting requirements in Poland, and the ability to independently coordinate with the host nation.

c. the Offeror’s criteria for the selection of a designer of record (DOR or architect-engineer) for future DB task order awards for the solicited MATOC; or if the Offeror has a selected DOR then provide the Letter of Commitment (LOC) and provide a narrative explaining the DORs capabilities; or if the Offeror has an in-house DOR, provide their capabilities.

d. the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by key sub-contractors and the prime. Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the contractor.

e. Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the proposed management structure for the team (i.e., key members), explaining how the design and construction process will be managed throughout the entirety of future task order life cycles (e.g., Design, Construction, Close-out).

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

g. Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach for design and construction.

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

**NOTE** Offeror's ability to communicate in English.

**NOTE** Shall Not Exceed15 pages. Excludes Organizational Chart.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

• Evaluate Offeror's proposed method for accomplishing work under this MATOC

• To be considered Acceptable, Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the specific requirements associated with the design, construction and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the USG issued under this MATOC

• Government will evaluate strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in the proposal

• Evaluate Offeror's understanding of the design process and the roles of the DOR, construction firm and the Government reviewers. Evaluation will be based on how well the Offeror demonstrates their organizational ability to execute multiple concurrent projects to include integration of the design and construction firms during the design and construction. Proposals demonstrating construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably.

• Evaluate Offeror's capabilities and understanding of the contractually required Quality Control Process for both design and construction

• Evaluate Offeror's understanding and capabilities to perform construction projects in Poland to include coordination with HN authorities on permitting requirements. Evaluate if Offeror demonstrated ability to communicate in English.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH RATING

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 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 un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Ref: Section 00 21 16 Phase One Instructions to Offerors

For Factor 2, Management Approach – Offerors will be assigned a combined Technical/Risk Rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offerors proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation.

The Adjectival Ratings, defined below, are Not separate ratings but will be used to define the levels of risk in the table on the previous slide.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH RATING

Technical Risk Ratings

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 tohave high potential to cause significant 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.

SSEB will evaluate Non-Price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE.

To be determined for the most highly qualified for Phase ONE the Offeror must receive a rating of no less than "Neutral Confidence" for Factor 1 and "Acceptable" for Factor 2.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Neutral Confidence" for Factor 1 AND "Acceptable" for Factors 2 and 3 MUST be achieved in Phase ONE and TWO.

**Phase ONE Evaluation Ratings will continue into Phase TWO.**

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price. In addition, the non-price factors are approximately equal to one another in importance.

PHASE ONE TO PHASE TWO

Volume I: Factor 3 – Technical Approach – SEED Project

Volume II: Price and Pro Forma Information (Not Rated)

Section A: Cover Letter, Standard Form 1442 and Price Schedule

Section B: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding

Section C: Pre-Award Information

Section D: Factor 4 – Price – SEED Project , Price Schedule

PHASE TWO OF TWO

Ref: Section 00 22 16 Phase Two Instructions to Offerors

Volume I – Factor 3: Technical Approach – SEED Project

Volume II – Section A: Cover Letter, Standard Form 1442, and Price Schedule **NOTE**: The party with authority to bind the JV shall sign the SF1442 and the required surety documents for the Phase TWO proposal. Make sure to include as part of Volume II.

Volume II: Section B – Financials. Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding Volume II: Section C – Pre-Award Information, SAM Registration, Representation & Certifications Volume II: Section D – Factor 4, Pricing – SEED Project, Price Schedule

PHASE TWO PROPOSAL FORMAT

**The Government may hold a pre-proposal conference for Phase TWO in conjunction with a Potential Site Visit if a SEED project is provided**

**Technical Approach Shall Not Exceed 10 pages. ONLY first 10 pages will be read. The Project Schedule is not included in the 10-page limitation.**

Offeror shall provide the following for the Technical Approach:

1. Provide a Technical Approach Narrative and a Project Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP Phase TWO Amendment documents for the SEED project.

2. Project Schedule shall be prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in native XER Format and be specifically tailored to the SEED project. Project Schedule shall include all the major portions of the work such as submittals, reviews and approval periods.

a. Description of Offeror's plan for executing the work from start to finish meeting contractual milestone dates and performance requirements

b. Description of activities along the two most critical paths of the Project Schedule explaining how durations were determined and logic developed.

c. Consideration given to cold and inclement weather that may be encountered

d. Identification of three (3) major areas of risks identified by the Offeror in their Project Schedule

e. Identification of Offeror's constraints to the schedules presented (e.g. labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc).

PHASE TWO: FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

SUBMISSION CRITERIA

Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror's proposal.

PHASE TWO EVALUATION / RATING

Ref: Section 00 22 16 Phase Two Instructions to Offerors

Table 5 Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates 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.

Good…