Addendum 1 DRAFT Criteria.docx

Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions

PHASE ONE OF TWO DESIGN-BUILD

Phase ONE of TWO Design-Build Selection Procedures In Phase ONE of the TWO phase design-build selection procedures, interested firms or Joint Venture (JV) entities (collectively referred to in the Solicitation as “Offerors”) submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design-build and design-bid-build construction task orders resulting from a contract award under this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and intends to select a target of five (5) of the most highly qualified Phase ONE Offerors to compete in Phase TWO. Offerors will be notified if they have or have not been selected to participate in Phase TWO by the Contracting Officer. In Phase TWO, the most highly qualified Offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 16.

Selecting only the most highly rated offerors to advance to phase two is not equivalent to establishing a competitive range pursuant to FAR Part 15. 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 design-build procurement is conducted in accordance with FAR part 15, including the evaluation of technical and price proposals. In other words, the selection of a limited number of offerors from phase one of a FAR subpart 36.3 competition to continue to phase two does not constitute, and is not equivalent to, the establishment of a competitive range.

Note that there may be communications during Phase 1, if determined to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government by the Contracting Officer.

A. PHASE ONE PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format.

Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase ONE.

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management Approach

Factor 1 is significantly more important Factor 2.

1. VOLUME I

a. Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully-executed JV agreements and fully executed teaming agreements (in English).

The cover letter shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

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

(4) Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

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

(6) Proof that the offeror and or the JV have the licenses and or legal authority to operate in Germany and Belgium.

i. JV agreements shall include the following (Note: If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the Offeror listed in Block 14 is a 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) website as a legal entity separate from the individual JV members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)) with the proposal):

(1) A copy of their JV agreement in English, signed by all parties of the JV.

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

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

(b) The management approach of the JV in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the JV and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

(c) The structure of the JV and decision-ranking responsibilities of the JV parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

(d) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the JV to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the JV.

(e) Identification of party maintaining the JV bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the JV.

(f) Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the JV.

(h) A statement in the agreement that each member of the JV will be jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

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

ii. Other formal teaming agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their teaming agreement in English, signed by all parties of the team. If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a firm other than the Offeror such as a subcontractor, team member, or affiliate (defined in FAR 2.101), a Letter of Commitment signed by authorized representatives of the Offeror and by authorized representatives of the non-Offeror firm must be submitted with the proposal. A sample for such Commitment Letters is provided as an Attachment 5. Terms and conditions shall not be added or deleted.

iii. Bonding Submission Requirements with the Phase ONE Proposal

40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Sub-Chapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act) and FAR 28.102 require a 100% performance and payment bonds issued by an acceptable corporate surety for any construction contract exceeding $150,000.00. However, this requirement may be waived by the Contracting Officer for work performed in foreign countries if it is found that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond. Future task order awards will be performed in a country outside the United States, and the Contracting Officer has found that it is impracticable for many otherwise eligible firms to access bonding from approved sureties. As such, and in accordance with FAR Part 28 and applicable contract clauses, the following bonding options and financial protections from other sureties are considered acceptable by the Contracting Officer on future task order awards and will be required as set forth below. An Offeror must supply a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) or a Bid Guarantee as described below with their Phase ONE proposal. Failure to provide the BLA or Bid Guarantee shall result in the proposal being unresponsive and un-awardable.

1. An Offeror must supply either a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) or a Bid Guarantee as described below with their Phase ONE proposal. Failure to provide either a compliant BLA or a compliant Bid Guarantee shall result in the proposal being unresponsive and un- awardable. The BLA or Bid Guarantee will expire or, upon request, will be returned to the Offeror if they are unsuccessful in Phase ONE. The BLAs or Bid Guarantee of Phase TWO Offerors will expire or, upon request, be returned to the Offeror after award of the base contract for both successful unsuccessful Phase TWO Offerors. Future surety alternatives will be required of base contract awardees upon award of any task orders as set forth below.

(a) Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and subsequent Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG): If an Offeror selects this alternative, it must provide with its Phase ONE proposal a BLA for 10% of the maximum task order value (i.e. the amount of $2,500,000.00 or the Euro equivalent). The BLA must conform to the requirements in the sample provided in Attachment 6. This letter may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the Contracting Officer and must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority. Please note that the terms and conditions of the BLA template shall not be changed or supplemented with other terms. Also note that the BLA requires the bank to provide, upon the award of any future task orders, a Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG) with the same terms and conditions of Attachment 7. The amount of future BLGs will be determined by the Contracting Officer at the task order level and will be noted in the task order RFP. A more detailed description of the BLG requirements after award date are described below.

(b) Bid Guarantee. If an Offeror selects this alternative, it must provide with its Phase ONE proposal a Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1. The Bid Guarantee shall be in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., a bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, a certified check, a cashier’s check, an irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States, which are described in more detail below.

i. A Pre-Award bid bond for 10% of the maximum task order value (i.e.$2,500,000.00 or the Euro equivalent) supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government from a bank, insurance company.

ii. A Pre-Award Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of FAR clause 52.228- 14, “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” equal to 10% of the maximum task order value (i.e. $2,500,000.00 or the Euro equivalent). This Letter must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade. As per 52.228-14(d), the Offeror must provide the Contracting Officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit.

iii. A Pre-Award certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 10% of the maximum task order value (i.e.

$2,500,000.00 or the Euro equivalent). The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

iv. Pre-Award United States bonds or notes equal to 10% of the maximum task order contract award (i.e. $2,500,000.00 or the Euro equivalent). The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The Contracting Officer may:

· Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

· Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

2. Surety Submission Requirements After Award: After award of the base contract and upon award of any task order (including the Seed task order, if applicable), the Offeror must supply either a Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG) or one of the alternative surety options as described in subparagraphs 3.b(i-iv) below. The date of required submission and the amount of the BLG or other surety alternative will be determined by the Contracting Officer and will be stated in the task order RFPs. If a Seed project is used in Phase TWO, the anticipated RFP Amendment for Phase TWO will set forth the date and amounts for the required BLG or other surety alternatives for the Seed task order. Failure to provide either the BLG or one of the other surety alternatives below may result in a termination of the contract or task order award. The Government will draw on such BLGs or other surety alternative provided if and when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the task order or the base contract or does not fulfill his undertaking in whole or in part. As this contract requires the prime contractor to ensure the timely payment of satisfactorily performing subcontractors (see e.g. FAR 52.232-2(c)), the failure to pay subcontractors can be considered a breach of contract and may result in the Government drawing on the BLG or surety alternative provided. Upon award of any task order, and as set forth in the task order RFP (or in Phase TWO RFP amendment if a Seed project is used), the Offeror must comply with the requirements of either a

BLG as described in subparagraph 3.a. below or with the requirements of one of the alternative surety options as described in 3.b(i-iv) below.

(a) A Post Task Order Award BLG: Upon award of any future task orders (including the Seed task order in Phase TWO), the task order RFP will set forth the amount required and the date for submission for a BLG if this alternative is selected by the Offeror. The BLG must confirm to the requirements in the sample provided in Attachment 6. The BLG may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the Contracting Officer and must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority. Please note that the terms and conditions of the BLG template (Attachment 6) shall not be changed or supplemented with other terms. The BLG also must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority.

(b) Other Acceptable Post Task Order Award Surety Alternatives. The following bonding options and financial protections from sureties are considered acceptable by the Contracting Officer on future task order awards. The requirements of each alternative are set forth below:

i. A Post Task Order award performance and payment bond (100%), as specified by 52.228-15 – Performance and Payment Bonds – Construction. The Contracting Officer will only accept performance and payment bonds from corporate sureties that appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” or bonds supported by coinsurance or reinsurance agreements from such listed sureties and conforming to the Department of the Treasury regulations in 31 CFR 223.10 and CFR 223.11, as elaborated in FAR Part 28. The Contracting Officer requires any reinsurance agreements to be executed and submitted with the bonds before making a final determination on the bonds.

ii. A Post Task Order Award Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of clause 52.228-14, “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” equal to the amount stated in the task order RFP (or as stated in the Phase TWO RFP Amendment in the event of any Seed task order award). An Irrevocable Letter of Credit must secure both performance and payment under the task order contract and substantively confirm to the model provided in clause 52.228-14. It must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade. As per 52.228-14(d), the Offeror must provide the Contracting Officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit..

iii. Post Task Order Award certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders or currency equal to the amount stated in the task order RFP (or as stated in the Phase TWO RFP

Amendment in the event of a Seed project award). The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

iv. Post Task Order Award United States bonds or notes equal to the amount stated in the task order RFP (or as stated in the Phase TWO RFP Amendment in the event of a Seed project award). The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The Contracting Officer may:

· Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

· Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

b. Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

1. Offerors shall provide and a maximum of five (5) projects completed or substantially complete by the Offeror (or by a JV member or other team member with a signed Commitment Letter – see Attachment sample letter) meeting the Factor 1 Past Performance definitions for recent and relevant projects, stated below. 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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror would be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

a. Projects must demonstrate that the Offeror (or if applicable the JV member or other team member with a signed Commitment Letter – see Attachment 5) has self-performed at least 25% of the cost of that project contract, not including the cost of materials, using its own employees to be considered similar.

b. To meet element of recency all projects must have been completed or substantially completed within the last 5 years (from the solicitation issue date). Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered less relevant. Projects are considered substantially complete at 75% completion.

c. Relevant projects will be similar in scope and size shall be DB or DBB construction of new facilities, major building renovation, road and pavement repair, minor construction, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, concrete work, and environmental (hazardous waste abatement and disposal) remedial work. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar in scope. Task orders may not be combined in order for them to be considered similar.

d. Offerors shall provide at least two (2) DB projects performed by the prime or a committed subcontractor or affiliate with a signed teaming agreement for this MATOC to enable the Government to assess the Offeror’s design experience and performance. Failure to supply at least two (2) such projects will not prevent the proposal from being evaluated, but the lack of experience in design 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.

e. Orders issued under Job Order Contracts, the installation of playground equipment, and the installation Anti-Terrorism Force Protection measures are not considered similar in size and scope to this MATOC.

f. To meet the size requirement for relevancy, projects must have had an award amount between 500,000 to 30,000,000 Euros.

To be considered relevant, projects must have been performed in the USACE Europe District Area of Responsibility, currently EUCOM and AFRICOM

Include a completed Experience Overview Sheet and a completed Experience Information Sheet for each project. Sample sheets are provided as RFP attachments. Experience Information sheets shall not exceed four (4) pages per project.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first five

(5) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall include completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form. If available, a record from the CPARS shall be submitted under this factor, rather than a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). An interim completed CPARs rating will be considered if a final record is not available. If a completed CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a PPQ Form, provided as an RFP Attachment.

PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP.

Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the Offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

Consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of key subcontractors, affiliates or other team members when it may adversely affect the prospective Prime Contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Any subcontract(s) or other teaming agreements that the Offeror wants to rely on for purposes of Factor 1 evaluation may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the required commitment letters (see attachment, Sample Commitment Letters). The signatures and substantive terms of these sample commitments are required for consideration of the teaming arrangement for evaluation purposes.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Government will evaluate the recent, relevant past performance of the prime offeror and team members and assign one confidence rating for this factor.

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

The SSEB will first assess whether the projects submitted each meet the criteria for recent and relevant projects for Factor 1, as set forth above. Then, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality of performance on the evaluated projects and may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance to determine a confidence assessment rating.

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant characteristics as possible. For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration may be given to an Offeror that demonstrates experience that involve the following:

i. Projects located in Germany, or BENELUX.

ii. Projects that demonstrate working in European Union (EU) countries on military bases with the United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD).

iii. Projects that include scopes of work that include both new construction and major renovations of existing buildings.

iv. Projects that include scopes of work that include both horizontal and vertical construction.

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

NOTE: Past performance examples that do not demonstrate at least one of the criteria listed above, that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project may result in a lower confidence rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE: 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. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor

1. Please note the Government reserves the right to review all recent past performance records available to make a confidence determination to include other projects not submitted by the Offeror. The Government also reserves the right to review past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners the Offeror may have submitted. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ Form):

· Quality

· Schedule/Timeliness of Performance

· Customer Satisfaction

· Management/Personnel/Labor

· Cost/Financial Management

· Safety/Security

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

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

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.

i. Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first element of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Table 1:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

complexities this solicitation requires.

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

effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

ii. Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect or element of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. 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. Other sources may, 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. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (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. In conducting the confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below or subsequent page:

Table 2:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

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.

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.

expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

For the Past Performance evaluation, there will be a single overall confidence assessment rating assigned.

g. Section C - Factor 2, Management Plan.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan, which shall include at a minimum:

i. An organizational chart and narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative shall:

-identify all offices involved in this contract -identify position(s) to communicate with the U.S. government

ii. In narrative form, discuss how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team. Discuss quality control lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure safety consistently across the team. Discuss safety lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iv. Discuss the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this RFP, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. Identify the significant aspects of the work that are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Prime Contractor and all key sub-contractors. Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor.

v. Discuss the Offeror’s Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) 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 in-house capabilities.

vi. Discuss knowledge of engineering, design and permitting in Germany and BENELUX to include coordination with local authorities and host nation codes.

vii. Discuss the Offeror’s plan and capability to manage multiple task orders concurrently at multiple locations and countries.

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

The Management Plan shall not exceed 15 pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 15 pages.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Management Plan will be evaluated as one factor and result in one rating. This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this MATOC. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the US Government as spelled out in the Solicitation documents and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements. The Offeror’s Management Approach also will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution.

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

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

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

iii. Comprehensively describes the duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and JVs.

iv. Describes management for performance of a potential task order including Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

-quality control -staffing (both management and labor to perform a typical design and construction project) -obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors.

v. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of engineering and design in Germany and BENELUX to include coordination with host nation authorities.

vi. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands and the ability to meet the requirements along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in English.

viii. Whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to manage and perform multiple task orders concurrently at multiple locations in Germany and BENELUX.

For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation:

Table 3:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Proposal is unawardable.

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be assessed according to the following guidelines:

Table 4:

NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3. VOLUME TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

a. Section A - Cover Letter. Offerors shall submit a cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

i. The Solicitation number.

ii. The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

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

iv. Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

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

b. Section B – Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments). Offerors shall submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 1442 using an electronic copy of the SF 1442 included in this Solicitation. If applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each Solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments. (Note: a completed SF 1442 will be submitted in both Phase One and Phase Two)

*** The party with authority to bind the Joint Venture shall sign the SF 1442 and the required surety documents for the Phase ONE proposal. Make sure to include as part of Volume II.

c. Section C – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the following:

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

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

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

d. Section D – Financial Information. Offerors shall submit financial information to demonstrate they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. For example, past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and/or bank name, number and POC, etc.

NOTE: Phase ONE does NOT involve pricing submission.

B. PHASE ONE EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SSEB.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System” (CPARS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System” (FAPIIS).

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

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

2. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. The Offeror may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of a JV member, a team member, a subcontractor, or an affiliate (collectively referred to in this RFP as “Team Members” if that experience/past performance relates to the services described for that party in the team arrangement agreement or the letter of commitment. Consistent with FAR 9.104-4 the Government also may consider the responsibility of such entities or persons when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. In the event that the Offeror is awarded the resultant contract, there can be no substitution of any proposed team member, subcontractor, or key personnel identified in a teaming agreement or letter of commitment without prior written approval of the contracting officer. Approval or disapproval of a substitute entity or person is a matter within the sole discretion of the contracting officer, who will consider factors such as whether the proposed substitute appears to be equally qualified and whether the substitution is the best interests of the Government and project execution. In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as he/she deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion. Further details on requirements related to Team Arrangements are provided in the section 00 21 00.

a. Teaming Agreements. For a teaming agreement 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. Further details on the requirements for a JV agreement are provided in section 00 21 00.

b. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details on the requirements for a JV agreement are provided in section 00 21 00. Offerors shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement if the Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of the Joint Venture Partners. This shall be provided as part of the proposal in Factor 1 Past Performance. Clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship on any ongoing or previous projects.

c. Key Subcontractor Commitment Letters. For a prime-subcontractor arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must have a commitment letter signed by both the prime and the subcontractor that includes the substantive portions of the sample provided in an RFP Attachment. The proposal must also 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 prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

d. Affiliates. The term “affiliate” is defined in FAR 2.101. For an affiliate’s past experience/past performance to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must demonstrate a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation. This commitment, 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 experience and/or past performance of any affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The SSEB will evaluate the non-price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE. To receive consideration for PHASE TWO, a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” and no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase ONE submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. The proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase ONE. However, the Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase TWO. The Government intends to select a target of five Offerors from Phase ONE to compete in Phase TWO, however the Government may elect to allow more than five if determined to be necessary and if in the best interest of the Government by the Contracting Officer. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may select fewer than five offerors to advance to phase TWO, or none at all. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

PHASE TWO OF TWO DESIGN-BUILD

Phase TWO of TWO – Design-Build Selection Procedures

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

During Phase TWO evaluations, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non- price factors. Award will be made to a target of five (5) Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described herein. Award may be made to fewer than or greater than five (5) Offerors at the Government’s discretion.