W912GB23R0041-0001 (Solicitation Amendment).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

Solicitation No. W912GB23R0041 for the Design-Build (DB) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) in support of defense operations in Poland is hereby amended as follow s:

1. The Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Offerors (Phase I), and Section 00 22 16 - Supplementary Instructions to Offerors (Phase II) have been replaced in their entirety.

2. The proposal due date has been extended to Monday, 30 October 2023 at 1000 HRS local time.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 46

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912GB23R0041

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Sep-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 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

25-Oct-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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Oct-2023 10:00 AM to 30-Oct-2023 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This requirement will be solicited as an unrestricted full and open competitive acquisition, which will result in the award of a pool of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOCs for DB and DBB construction requirements providing new facilities and real property repair and maintenance in support of defense operations in Poland. Each IDIQ will be awarded a five-year base period of performance.

The Government intends to make an award to a target of five (5) contractors, however the Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

The Government will use Two-Phase DB Selection Procedures for the establishment of the base contracts in the MATOC pool in accordance with FAR Subpart 36.3 and ER 1180-1-9, as authorized by 10 USC 3241.

The acquisition will be a Best-Value Procurement, utilizing a Tradeoff Source Selection Process (see FAR 15.101-1). This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest price proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. The application of this process, as well as general source selection principles, is discussed in the body of this SSP. Evaluation methodology consists of four factors:

Phase ONE Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management Approach

Phase TWO Factor 3: Technical Approach - SEED Project

Factor 4: Price – SEED Project

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.

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Phase ONE consideration will be given in two (2) evaluation factors: Past Performance and Management Approach. Past Performance will be more important than Management Approach. The most highly qualified proposals will be down-selected, and offerors with these proposals will be invited to submit proposals for Phase II. During Phase II, consideration will be given in two (2) evaluation factors: Technical Approach (SEED Project), and Price (SEED Project). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. 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 Phase TWO.

Selecting only the most highly qualified Offerors to advance to phase two is not equivalent to establishing a competitive range pursuant to FAR Part 15. Furthermore, under FAR subpart 36.3 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 DB 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.

Only those Offerors who receive a written notification that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase TWO of this Solicitation shall be invited to submit a Phase TWO proposal. Those Offerors selected for Phase TWO will be provided a technical requirements package for a SEED Task Order (SEED project) which will be representative of the type of work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s). The use of a SEED project in Phase TWO will be determined and the project requirements shall be described in an amendment to the RFP for Phase TWO, after the close of Phase ONE.

NOTE: When the word “Offeror” is encountered in the RFP, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business as the Prime Contractor with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this Solicitation.

When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean USACE Europe District NAU. “Request For Proposal” or otherwise seen as “RFP” and “Solicitation” are used synonymously throughout.

B. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

The Government may choose to hold a pre-proposal conference for Phase ONE and a site visit to the SEED project location in Phase TWO, if the RFP is amended to provide a SEED project for Phase TWO. Only the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE will be invited to propose on Phase TWO. The Phase ONE pre-proposal conference details are as follows:

1. Location: Fraport Conference Center (see Attachment 13 – Map for Frankfurt Pre-Proposal Conference

2. Time/Date: 5 October 2023 at 0900 – 1230 Central European Time Check-in will begin at 0900 local (Frankfurt, Germany) time and presentations will begin at 0930. The conference is expected to conclude no later than 1230 (NOON). The hotel conference room will display the room location at the entrance to Fraport Conference Center upon arrival).

3. Registration Instructions: Due to limited space, attendees are limited to no more than THREE people per Offeror. Offerors must pre-register their attendees no later than 28 September 2023 at 1500 Central European Time. To Pre-register, complete the site visit attendee information sheet (Attachment 11) and return to the Contract Specialist at Bjorn.Hale@usace.army.mil.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

mailto:Bjorn.Hale@usace.army.mil

Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Phase ONE – Factor 1 – Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Phase ONE – Factor 2 – Management Approach: Each Offeror’s management approach will be reviewed to determine that offerors possess a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work. Individual Personnel will be evaluated to determine the adequacy and strength of proposed personnel.

Phase TWO – Factor 3 –Technical Approach: Each Offeror’s Technical narrative and Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents for the SEED Project. The Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete projects to meet the required contract completion period stated on the schedule.

Phase TWO –– Factor 4 – Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness, completeness and balance will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the Plans and Specifications (Attachment 1 - SPECS BINDER FY23 Poland MATOC). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each technical factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PHASE I INSTRUCTION TO OFFEROR

A. EVALUATION APPROACH AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

SECTION 00 21 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1. Overview

1.1 In Phase ONE of this TWO Phase Design-Build (DB) selection procedures, interested firms or joint venture entities (collectively referred to in the Solicitation as “Offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute DB and DBB construction work task orders resulting from a contract award under this Solicitation. Proposals that do not clearly address all Factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select a target of five (5) of the most highly qualified Phase ONE Offerors to move to Phase TWO. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may select more or fewer than five (5) offerors to advance to Phase TWO, or none at all. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject any and all offers. The most highly qualified Offerors selected to participate in Phase TWO will be notified by the Contracting Officer. In Phase TWO, the short-listed Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 16. 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.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase TWO through use of a SEED project.

Following completion of the Phase TWO evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a target of five (5) contracts to the responsible Offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines conform to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may select more, or fewer than five (5) offerors for award of the base MATOC. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 The RFP is available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will be made available for the viewing at the SAM.gov website or via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website (https://piee.eb.mil/). All amendments will also be available for reviewing in PIEE. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. ALL RESPONSES SHALL https://piee.eb.mil/

BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY through the PIEE website (https://piee.eb.mil/) no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Hand carried delivery or SPS/UPS/FEDEX delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Please refer to Attachment 12 for instructions to Offerors on how to submit proposals using PIEE.

2.3 For Phase ONE, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below.

Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase ONE shall be submitted accordingly:

To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the Solicitation number, 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 II_Pro Forma Information/Admin Matters.pdf”

• Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance

• Volume I – Factor 2: Management Approach

*NOTE: Offeror’s are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for file size limits. If needed, Offeror’s are advised to break the files down into smaller sections to upload to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified above.

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized in A4 format (210mm x 297mm) or 8.5inches x 11inches. Pages larger than A4 formatting or 8.5inches x 11inches, 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 to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this Solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the proposal without further evaluation. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each Factor. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. All files must have all formulas present and not hidden to include macros. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Late proposals shall be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition (Nov 2021), subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

NOTE: Phase ONE does NOT involve pricing submission. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase ONE consists of two parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review and technical evaluation.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance and Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete. Ensure the Offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance guarantee from an acceptable surety. If an Offeror fails to submit required documentation may result in a determination of non-compliance and removal from consideration. Technical evaluation is discussed at length below.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume ONE proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor 1 – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on an overall confidence in performance (Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience (Table 1, below) and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor 2 – Management Approach will be rated using Tables 3 and 4 below. The SSEB will assign an adjectival descriptor to the Technical Factors. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 3) and risk descriptions (see Table 4) below. For submission requirements designated as “shall” or “must,” failure to provide the requested information will be considered a deficiency and the specified factor will be rated red/“Unacceptable,” and the Offer will be considered un-awardable unless proposal revisions are requested by the Contracting Officer. For submission requirements designated as “should,” failure to provide the requested information may result in a lower rating for the specified factor.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Phase ONE proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical proposal in their initial offer. The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of a target of five (5) of up to the seven (7) of the most highly qualified offerors to continue to Phase TWO of the procurement. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may select more, or fewer than five (5) seven (7) Offerors to advance to Phase TWO, or none at all. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject any and all offers

4.2 Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance

4.3 Volume I – Factor 2: Management Approach

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information/Administrative Matters

**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 Not Rated Section B Standard Form SF1442 Not Rated Section C Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Not Rated

Section C Financial Evidence. Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Not Rated Section D Pre-Award Information. SAM Registration, Reps and Certs (Not Rated)

4.6 Ratings - Evaluators will apply the rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1 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.

Table 2 Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description 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 successfully perform the required effort.

TABLE 3 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 un-awardable, 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.

Table 4 - Technical Risk Descriptions

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 any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have 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.

4.7 Definitions

1. 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.

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

3. 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.

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

FAR 15.001.

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

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

7. 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 “Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System” (CPARS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System” (FAPIIS).

8. Design Build. Combining design and construction in a single contract with one contractor.

9. Design Bid Build. The traditional delivery method where design and construction are sequential and contracted for separately with two contracts and two contractors.

5 Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 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) must have been performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor. If the Offeror is a newly formed JV, two projects where one of its members was a prime contractor will suffice for this prime contractor requirement but only if that JV member will be in charge of management for task orders under this contract. If neither the Offeror nor one of its JV members have ever been a prime on at least two projects of similar scope and size, the proposal will still be evaluated, but the lack of this past performance may affect the confidence rating under this Factor.

Past performance submitted by a subcontractor will be evaluated by comparing work performed on prior projects with the work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this requirement. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date will be evaluated but may impact the project’s overall relevancy rating and may be considered less relevant. Projects are considered substantially complete at 80% completion, if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project.

Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

To meet element of recency all projects must have been completed or substantially completed within the last six (6) years (from solicitation issue date) and must be similar in size and scope to the work solicited under this contract. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered less relevant.

5.1.2 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.

5.1.3 At least two (2) projects shall be DB projects. This will enable the Government to assess the Offeror’s design experience and performance. Failure to supply at least two (2) such DB projects will not prevent the proposal from being evaluated, but the lack of experience in DB may affect the confidence rating under this Factor. Note: projects should be submitted from construction contracts or design-build construction contracts, not Architect-Engineer contracts.

5.1.4 Projects must demonstrate that the Offeror (or if applicable the JV member or other team member with a signed Commitment Letter – Attachment 5) has self-performed at least 15% of the price of that project contract, not including the cost of materials, and using its own employees to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum price of €250,000.00 and a maximum price of €15,000,000.00. Projects outside of this range may be submitted, but may result in a reduced relevancy rating for that project.

5.1.6 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features (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 Engineers Europe District, Area of Responsibility (AORs) comprised of AFRICOM (Africa Command), EUCOM (European Command), and Israel.

*NOTE: Offerors whose proposals have more projects meeting or exceeding all criteria requirements for this Factor may receive more consideration than an Offeror who submits fewer projects meeting or exceeding all criteria.

Offerors are also cautioned that the SSEB may assess less relevancy against past performance that do not demonstrate one or more of the criteria listed above, that are not verifiable. Offerors are also cautioned that their overall confidence rating may be impacted where the Offeror’s past performance on a submitted project(s) does not demonstrate the above 5.1.1 - 5.1.5 or performance was minor in comparison to the whole project.

5.1.7 The following information shall be provided for each project: Proposals shall include a completed Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 2) for all projects submitted under Factor 1 and a completed Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 3) for each project submitted. The following information shall be provided for each project:

5.1.6.1 Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier

5.1.6.2 Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be completed. All projects but two (2), must be complete so the offeror’s testing/commissioning and turn over can be assessed. Any two (2) projects not yet complete must be at least 80% complete to be determined relevant. Provide description of work remaining to be completed for projects that are at 80%.

5.1.6.3 Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility

5.1.6.4 Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both

5.1.6.5 Type and percentage of work that was self-performed (Attachment 10); type and percentage of work performed by the sub, teaming or JV partner

5.1.6.6 Whether the project involved new construction, renovation, or both. Clearly delineate square footage for new construction and renovation.

5.1.6.7 Whether the project was completed as a DB o r D B B project.

5.1.6.8 The name of the customer, including whether the project was completed for USACE or United

States (US) Department of Defense (DoD)

5.1.6.9 Award value and current contract value

5.1.7 For projects performed for the U.S. Government a CPARS evaluation shall be provided in Offeror’s

Factor 1 proposal. For projects performed for private clients, a sample Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4) is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the Offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the customer.

For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

**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.

JOINT VENTURES (JVs):

*Included as an Appendix to Factor 1, Past Performance

5.1.8 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

a. JV agreements shall include the following (in English):

(i) Executive Summary. Include a one-page cover letter, and any applicable executed Joint Venture (JV) agreements or other evidence of formal teaming agreements.

(a) 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 SAM UEI DUNS numbers of each JV partner.

b. Other formal teaming agreements (see sample documents at Attachments 5) shall include the following (in English):

1. 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. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must 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, etc.).

The proposal must also include an agreement that has been executed between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. NOTE: For the purposes of evaluation under this RFP, if one of the parties in a teaming arrangement possesses relevant past performance, the past performance of that firm will be considered as the past performance of entire teaming arrangement provided that the offeror clearly explain how the scope of work on the cited project is relevant to the work that team partner will perform under this contract, and that those efforts are relevant.

a. JVs. If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a fully executed legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided earlier in this section.

b. Affiliates. In the case of an Offeror’s affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, scope of effort, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation.

This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the past performance of any affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

c. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g., if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that 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 on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

Offerors are advised that a proposed teaming agreement or an agreement to negotiate a teaming arrangement in the event an offeror receives a contract award is NOT a valid teaming agreement.

Members of the teaming agreement shall include a letter of commitment with the proposal that demonstrates they are committed to performing the aspects of work the teaming arrangement indicates they will perform during contract performance.

d. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates except that, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the Prime Contractor, permit the substitution of a firm with equivalent or greater capability a firm that was proposed with a Commitment Letter in the proposal.

Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

5.1.9 Joint Venture/Teaming Agreements Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Offeror’s compliance and responsibility review and will not be rated. This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the Offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria:

For the Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and a confidence assessment, as detailed below:

5.2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating (Table 1). The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to ‘b. Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance’ by using the criteria identified above. A relevancy determination will be made for each submitted project. 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.

5.2.2 Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The SSEB will next review how well the Offeror performed on those projects. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the Offeror, 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 CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers.

Both interim and final CPARS ratings may be considered. The Government may also survey other sources to 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. If, at time of evaluation, a final contractor performance evaluation exists in CPARS, and yet the Offeror submits a PPQ, only the evaluation in CPARS will be considered. If the CPARS or PPQs for each submitted project within the proposal indicate that the Offeror was required to take corrective action for any substandard performance or experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken within their proposal.

Completed PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection. However, Offerors shall not incorporate such PPQs by reference. The Offeror must resubmit PPQs for each submitted project within their proposal as evidence of quality of past performance. This does not, however, preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing current, detailed and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.2.3 When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

5.2.4 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for the Offeror and the Offeror’s proposed team. The SSEB will determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and consider this for the performance confidence assessment. Note: A significant percentage of ratings below satisfactory in the categories of Management, Quality and/or Schedule may affect the confidence rating of an Offeror.

5.2.5 In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified in Table 2.

5.2.6 Offerors will receive one rating for Factor 1, a Confidence Rating.

5.2.7 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.

6 Volume I – Factor 2: Management Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 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, and how members of the team, including sub-contractors (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…