B.08 RFP_Att 16_Instructions and Evaluation Criteria_IAF-25-0032 Nampula, MOZ v2.pdf

CUI

RFP W912GB25RA007, IAF-25-0032

MOZ Nampula Surgical Suite Renovation

Section 00 21 00 – Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Overview:

1.1. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to select one contractor for the project IAF-25-0032 Mozambique Nampula Surgical Suite Renovation. The Government will use the Best Value Trade-Off process to evaluate proposals. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror who provides the best overall value to the Government.

1.2. This Request for Proposal (RFP) outlines the parameters for a design-build project to renovate an existing surgical suite at a hospital facility in Nampula, Mozambique; Latitude 15°07’52.8” S, Longitude 39°15’06.3” E. The project includes the following general items of work, with detailed requirements provided in the attached Statement of Work:

1.2.1. Design and construction for the renovation of an existing hospital facility.

1.2.2. Design and construction to demolish existing interior walls, inclusive of potential load bearing walls, to reconfigure interior layout.

1.2.3. Design and construction to renovate the electrical distribution system within the surgical wing of the hospital facility.

1.3. On Site Point of Contact: For logistics concerns and questions accessing the site, Offerors are encouraged to contact Doctor Lucio Changa, Hospital Director (changalucio@gmail.com).

1.4. Project Questions: All project questions should be submitted via ProjNet (see instructions below). Any answers given at the site visit are strictly unofficial.

1.5. If you have technical questions about this solicitation, you must submit them in writing through the "Bidder Inquiry" feature on ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. To access this feature, you will need to enter the bidder inquiry key: Y586SD-96572F

1.5.1. Important Notes:

1.5.1.1. The Government reserves the right to decline answering certain questions.

1.5.1.2. Questions will not be answered later than 10 calendar days before the deadline for offers, unless it is in the Government's interest.

1.5.2. Registering on ProjNet: To stay up-to-date with Q&As related to this solicitation, we encourage you to register on ProjNet. Here's how:

1.5.2.1. Go to the ProjNet webpage and click on the "BID" tab.

1.5.2.2. Select "Bidder Inquiry" and choose "USACE" as the agency.

1.5.2.3. Enter the bidder inquiry key (Y586SD-96572F) and your email address.

1.5.2.4. After logging in, enter the required information to create your user ID.

1.5.2.5. Verify the information on the next screen, and you will be able to submit and view inquiries.

1.5.3. Tracking Your Inquiries: When you submit an inquiry, you will receive a system-generated email notification once it has been processed and answered. It is your responsibility to monitor your inquiries and responses.

2. Submittal of proposals:

2.1. When submitting proposals for this project, please follow these guidelines:

2.1.1. Essential Information Only: Limit your submission to the data necessary for evaluation, to minimize time and expenses.

mailto:changalucio@gmail.com

MOZ Nampula Surgical Suite Renovation

CUI

2.1.2. Detailed Information: Include sufficient details to clearly describe your capability to successfully complete the project.

2.1.3. Minimum Requirements: The requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

2.1.4. Sequence of Information: Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in disqualification from award.

2.1.5. Accessing the RFP: The RFP is available online only at the SAM website (www.sam.gov).

2.2. Electronic Submission

2.2.1. Authorized Submission Method: Submit responses electronically to:

marcus.d.stringer@usace.army.mil and sterling.j.alphonse@usace.army.mil.

2.2.2. Deadline: Submit responses by the time specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.2.3. Unauthorized Submission Methods: Hand-carried delivery, SPS/UPS/FEDEX delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs, and facsimile submission are not authorized.

2.3. Proposal Structure

2.3.1. Table of Contents: Include a table of contents and clear divisions between each section.

2.3.2. Parallel Sections: Organize sections to parallel the submission requirements identified in this RFP.

2.4. File Naming Convention

2.4.1. Solicitation Number: Begin each filename with the solicitation number (25RA007).

2.4.2. Word "PROPOSAL": Follow the solicitation number with the word "PROPOSAL".

2.4.3. Firm Name: Include your firm's name.

2.4.4. Brief File Description: End with a brief file description.

2.4.5. Examples:

2.4.5.1. "25RA007 Proposal _ Firmname Volume I.pdf"

2.4.5.2. "25RA007 Proposal _ Firmname Volume II.pdf"

2.5. Volume I shall include the following information:

2.5.1. Volume I – Factor I – Technical Approach & Schedule

2.5.2. Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance

2.6. Volume II shall include the following information:

2.6.1. Volume II – Factor III – Price and Pro Forma Information

2.6.2. Volume II – Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Price Schedule

2.6.3. Volume II – Tab B – Team Arrangements

2.6.4. Volume II – Tab C – Financial Information

2.6.5. Volume II – Tab D – SAM Registration/Representations and Certifications

3. Proposal Evaluation Process:

3.1. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB): Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB): The proposal evaluation will be conducted by a board consisting of representatives from the Corps of Engineers, the User/Customer, and other required personnel. The evaluation process will be confidential, and the technical proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered.

3.1.1. Confidentiality

3.1.1.1. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

3.1.1.2. The technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence.

3.2. The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:marcus.d.stringer@usace.army.mil mailto:sterling.j.alphonse@usace.army.mil

3.2.2. Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements.

Some factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and confidence.

3.2.3. Price Evaluation: The Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4. Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all, above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors:

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors, listed in order of importance:

4.1.1. Volume I, Factor I Technical Approach and Schedule: This factor is the most important and will be evaluated first.

4.1.2. Volume I, Factor II Past Performance: This factor is the second most important and will be evaluated after Technical Approach and Schedule.

4.1.3. Volume II, Factor III Price and Pro Forma Information: This factor will be evaluated last and will include the following subfactors:

4.1.3.1. Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Schedule: This subfactor is not rated and will be used for administrative purposes.

4.1.3.2. Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements (if necessary): This subfactor is not rated and will be used to verify joint venture agreements, if applicable.

4.1.3.3. Tab C: Bonding Requirement: This subfactor is not rated and will be used to verify bonding requirements

4.1.3.4. Tab D: SAM Registration/Representations and Certifications: This subfactor is not rated and will be used to verify SAM registration and representations and certifications.

4.2. IMPORTANT NOTES:

4.2.1. Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors: All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

4.2.2. Initial Offer: Offerors are encouraged to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer.

4.2.3. Discussions: Do not assume that there will be an opportunity to participate in discussions or submit a revised offer. The Government may make an award of a conforming proposal without discussions if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

4.3. Ratings: Evaluators will apply the rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Table 1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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

Table 2 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Rating Definition

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

Source Selection Plan for RFP W912GB25RA007, IAF-25-0032

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Table 3 Combined Technical /Risk Rating

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.4. Definitions:

4.4.1. 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.

4.4.2. Strength: An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

4.4.4. Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

4.4.6. 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).

5. Volume I – Factor I – Technical Approach & Schedule

5.1. Technical Approach Submission Requirements: The Offeror must submit a technical approach that demonstrates an understanding of the design, construction, and administrative responsibilities of the project in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

5.1.1. Formatting Requirements:

5.1.1.1. The submission should use at least 10-pitch font.

5.1.1.2. The submission is limited to 20 pages (A4 or letter size).

5.1.1.3. If the submission exceeds 20 pages, the Government will only review the first 20 pages submitted, in the order that they are submitted.

5.2. Technical Approach Narrative: The technical approach shall include a Technical Approach Narrative that addresses each of the following:

5.2.1. Manpower Required: The Offeror must describe the manpower required to design and construct the project, including the makeup of teams by trade.

5.2.2. Specialized Tools and Equipment: The Offeror must describe any specialized tools and equipment required to construct the project.

5.2.3. Safety Processes: The Offeror must describe their safety processes.

5.2.4. Quality Control Processes: The Offeror must describe their quality control processes.

5.2.5. Knowledge of Requirements and Constraints: The Offeror must demonstrate their knowledge of requirements and constraints applicable to work in the Host Nation and regionally near the project location.

5.2.6. Assurance of Quality Workmanship: The Offeror must explain how they will use proposed personnel and subcontractor resources to assure the delivery of quality workmanship in accordance with the statement of work.

5.2.7. Subcontracting Plan: The Offeror must clearly identify if they intend to use subcontractors or if they intend to self-perform through submission of a separate Subcontracting Plan.

5.2.7.1. The plan must be specific on which technical aspects the Offeror plans to self-perform as the prime contractor and which tasks the subcontractor(s) will perform.

5.2.8. Designer of Record: The Offeror must provide information about their understanding of the design process, and the role of the designers of record, integration with the construction firm, and the involvement of construction personnel during design.

5.2.9. Schedule Narrative: The schedule narrative must not exceed eight pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 10-pitch font. Submissions exceeding eight pages will not be read or evaluated beyond the first eight pages. The narrative should accomplish the following:

5.2.9.1. Define the primary assumptions used in the Offeror’s schedule.

5.2.9.2. Discuss skilled and unskilled labor requirements the Offeror anticipates for critical schedule elements.

5.2.9.3. Explain the management of design submittal submission, potential issues, and proactive resolutions in the event of design delays/deficiencies found during US Government review.

5.2.9.4. Discuss how the Offeror will manage subcontractors, where required, from a schedule perspective.

5.2.9.5. Discuss the warranty period.

5.2.10. Schedule. The schedule submission may be submitted MS Excel, MS Word, or Adobe pdf file format and should be specifically tailored to the project contemplated by this solicitation. If prepared in Primavera "xer", the Offeror may submit a Primavera file also, the schedule should include the activities listed below regardless of format:

5.2.10.1. Contract Award

5.2.10.2. BLG, Insurance Submission and other pre-construction approvals

5.2.10.3. Notice to Proceed (NTP)

5.2.10.4. Submission of each design submittal required in the SOW.

5.2.10.5. Design submittal review periods as specified in the SOW.

5.2.10.6. Preconstruction submittals

5.2.10.7. Site Mobilization

5.2.10.8. Construction activities across various construction trades

5.2.10.9. Initial and Final Inspections

5.2.10.10. Closeout documents

5.2.10.11. Construction completion

5.2.10.12. Warranty

5.2.10.13. Construction Duration: For evaluation purposes, assume a 450-calendar-day construction duration, with the award date of 30 September 2025 and NTP issuance on 31 October

5.2.10.14. Baseline Items and Options: The schedule should assume all baseline items and options will be awarded on that date.

5.3. Technical Approach Narrative: The technical approach may include a Technical Approach Narrative that addresses each of the following:

5.3.1. Entity Responsible for Construction Permits: The Offeror should clearly identify which entity (Prime Contractor or Subcontractor) will hold and be responsible for obtaining all required construction permits.

5.3.2. Value Added Tax (VAT) Reimbursements or Exemptions: The Offeror should provide details on how they will track and manage VAT reimbursements or exemptions in the Host Nation. The Offeror must provide documentation that they will be eligible for VAT Reimbursements or Exemption.

5.4. Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal based on the following criteria:

5.4.1. Technical Approach Narrative

5.4.1.1. The Offeror's understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to design and construct the project in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

5.4.1.2. The Offeror's ability to successfully execute the solicited project through its technical approach narrative.

5.4.1.3. The Offeror's knowledge of requirements and constraints applicable to work in the Host Nation and regionally near the project location.

5.4.1.4. The Offeror's plan for self-performance and subcontracting, including the identification of which entity will hold and be responsible for obtaining all required construction permits.

5.4.1.5. The Offeror's assurance of quality workmanship, including their plan to use proposed personnel and subcontractor resources to deliver quality workmanship in accordance with the SOW.

5.4.1.6. The Offeror's understanding of the design process, including the role of the designers of record, integration with the construction firm, and the involvement of construction personnel during design.

5.4.2. Knowledge of Requirements and Constraints: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of construction projects in the host nation, to include coordination with host nation authorities for permits. The Government will evaluate if the Offeror demonstrated the ability to communicate in English. The Government will provide additional consideration to offerors who identify that the Prime Contractor will maintain possession of the construction permit.

5.4.3. Value Added Tax (VAT) Reimbursements or Exemptions: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the Host Nation's VAT laws, including eligibility for VAT exemptions or reimbursements. Greater weight will be given to offerors who explain what internal systems or processes they have in place to track VAT reimbursements or exemptions.

5.4.4. Schedule Narrative and Schedule: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the interrelated nature of activities in the proposed schedule, the Offeror's overall apparent capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the realism of the schedule. The Government may use independent judgment concerning typical construction durations, as well as the Offeror’s proposed schedule logic and constraints.

5.4.4.1. Identification of critical milestones and overall critical path, and any parallel activities.

5.4.4.2. Schedule constraints related to site access, material delivery, long lead items, and US

Government review periods for design submissions.

5.4.4.3. Thoroughness of activities during design, construction, and closeout phases.

5.4.4.4. Distinction between prime and subcontractor activities if applicable.

5.4.4.5. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including their key roles during construction.

5.4.4.6. The offerors understanding of the warranty period.

5.4.5. Deficiency: Offerors that do not submit all requisite items listed in the submission requirements will receive a deficiency. The Government will not consider proposals that are incomplete or do not meet the submission requirements.

5.4.6. For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating (Table 3 – Combined Technical /Risk Rating) based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation.

6. Volume I – Factor II – Past Performance

6.1. Submission Requirements: Provide descriptions of up to five (5) projects substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor (or by a joint venture member or other team member with a signed commitment letter – see attachment 8) within the last five (5) years that are similar to this project in scope, size, and location.

6.1.1. For each substantially complete project submitted, proposals shall include:

6.1.1.1. A completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or completed CPARS Rating

(Attachment 15)

6.1.2. For each substantially complete project submitted, proposals should include:

6.1.2.1. A Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 13)

6.1.2.2. A Past Performance Overview Sheet (Attachment 14)

6.1.3. Projects Not Substantially Complete: For the purpose of this solicitation, a project is considered substantially complete when the project is 90% or more complete, and the remaining work is minor and does not affect the overall project scope, size, or complexity. Projects that are not substantially complete will not be evaluated.

6.1.4. Scope: Projects considered similar in scope include:

6.1.4.1. Complete design, procurement, and construction to renovate existing hospital or clinic facilities in the Southern Africa region. This includes but is not limited to the demolition, site preparation and improvement, procurement and construction of hospital, health clinics, or science labs.

6.1.4.2. In addition, projects considered similar in scope should include some or all the following:

flooring and wall repairs and replacement of concrete masonry building structure, general electrical work for building distribution system and lighting, interior and exterior wall plaster work.

6.1.4.3. Projects involving construction to renovate existing hospital and clinic facilities in the Southern Africa region will be rated favorably.

6.1.4.4. Trades of work that are similar in scope include:

6.1.4.4.1. Construction of reinforced elevated concrete slab foundation,

6.1.4.4.2. Suspended ceilings,

6.1.4.4.3. Analysis of structural components,

6.1.4.4.4. Installation of mini-split HVAC units,

6.1.4.4.5. Installation of general electrical equipment.

6.1.5. Size: Projects considered similar in magnitude include projects ranging in value Between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

6.1.6. Location: Projects that demonstrate past performance in rural areas of the following countries:

Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, or Zimbabwe.

6.1.7. Self-Performance: Projects must demonstrate that the Offeror (or if applicable the joint venture member or other team member with a signed commitment letter) has self- performed at least 51% of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general condition or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors.

6.1.8. Teaming Arrangement Requirements: If a teaming arrangement is proposed, the Offeror shall provide a signed commitment letter (attachment 8) from each team member, which includes:

6.1.8.1. A description of the team member's role and responsibilities.

6.1.8.2. A description of the team member's qualifications and experience.

6.1.8.3. A statement of the team member's commitment to the project

NOTE: The Government will only consider projects submitted by the prime contractor or by team members/subcontractors with a signed commitment letter.

6.1.9. PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided PPQ and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ

6.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1. Past Performance Evaluation: The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and a confidence assessment.

6.2.1.1. Relevancy Rating (Table 1 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating): The offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on its similarity in scope, size, and location to the current project, as well as their experience working with local municipalities and the United States Government.

6.2.1.2. Confidence Assessment (Table 2 – Past Performance Confidence Assessments): A confidence rating will be assigned based on the offeror's recent and relevant performance record, using the definitions provided in Table 2.

6.2.1.3. Self-Performance: The offeror's ability to self-perform at least 51% of the direct contract labor will be evaluated as part of their overall past performance.

6.2.1.4. Additional consideration will be given for projects that contain the following features (list is not in order of importance):

6.2.1.4.1. Projects that demonstrate working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

6.2.1.4.2. Projects that demonstrate past performance procuring and executing work in logistically challenging and contested areas in rural Africa. Procurement is defined as sourcing basic construction materials locally to the project site and not importing them from other countries abroad.

6.2.2. Offerors will receive one rating for Factor II – Past Performance, a confidence rating.

7. Volume II – Factor III – Price and Pro Forma Information

NOTE: The information submitted in this volume is not rated but checked for compliance. Failure to submit compliant documentation may result in your proposal being rejected for non-compliance.

7.1. Submission Requirements:

7.1.1. The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Attachment 8 Price Schedule.

7.1.2. The party with authority to bind the Joint Venture (if applicable) shall sign the SF 1442 and any other required documentation.

7.1.3. 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.

7.1.3.1. Each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formerly DUNS number) with the proposal.

7.1.4. The offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members.

7.2. Evaluation Criteria: The Standard Form 1442 and the Price Schedule will not be rated. The forms will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the Offer signed.

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

7.2.2. Prices proposed will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.3. Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Price Schedule

7.3.1. The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Attachment 8 - Price Schedule.

7.3.2. The party with authority to bind the Joint Venture (if applicable) shall sign the SF 1442 and any other required documentation.

7.4. Tab B - Team Arrangements

7.4.1. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements.

7.4.2. 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.

7.4.3. 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.).

7.4.4. The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members.

7.4.5. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror.

7.4.6. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

7.5. Tab C – Bonding Requirements: Offerors must include the following in their proposal:

7.5.1. Statement of Intent: clearly state which bonding option you intend to use if awarded the contract.

7.5.2. Provide one of the following with your proposal:

7.5.2.1. Bid Bond (if choosing the 100% Performance and Payment Bond option)

7.5.2.2. If choosing the Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) option: a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) for 10% of the proposed price

7.5.2.3. Proof of ability to obtain an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for 10% of the proposed price

7.5.2.4. Commitment letter for providing a certified check, bank draft, or money order for 10% of the proposed price

7.5.2.5. Proof of ownership of U.S. bonds or notes for 10% of the proposed price

7.5.3. Failure to provide a bid guarantee or letter of assurance as prescribed above will determine your proposal to be incomplete and it will not be evaluated.

7.5.4. The successful offeror must provide the actual bond or guarantee as stated in their proposal within 14 days of contract award.

NOTE: Use the Provided Templates: For the BLA option in 7.5.2.2., use the template provided in the solicitation without alterations.

7.6. Tab D – SAM Registration and Representations & Certifications

7.6.1. Offeror shall submit the following information:

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

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

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

7.6.1.4. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier for any A-E subcontractor identified in the proposal. NOTE: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P707_126651 http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/

7.6.1.5. Offerors are cautioned to ensure that they are fully registered in SAM in advance of proposal submission throughout the proposal review period, and through contract completion and warranty.

7.6.1.6. Failure to maintain SAM registration may render your proposal ineligible for award.

7.7. SAM Registration: In order to do business with the US Government as a contractor, a company must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM, www.sam.gov).

7.7.1. To register on SAM, a company must obtain a NCAGE code and a Unique Entity ID (UEI). You can apply for an NCAGE code and a Unique Entity ID (UEI) simultaneously, but both must be obtained in order to register on SAM. Specific instructions how to obtain a NCAGE code, and SAM Registration are as follows:

7.7.1.1. NCAGE Code: An NCAGE code is a five-character ID number used by the US Government to identify international companies. All non-US firms must obtain an NCAGE code. How does your company obtain an NCAGE Code? If you are a vendor located outside the United States, one can be obtained at no cost by visiting NCAGE Code Request Tool (https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/Codification/Support/en/Products/NCAGE/).

7.7.1.2. Unique Entity ID (UEI): Go to https://sam.gov/content/home and click on “Get Started” under “Register your Entity”.

** END OF SOLICITATION PROVISIONS **

http://www.sam.gov/ https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/Codification/Support/en/Products/NCAGE/ https://sam.gov/content/home