B08-W912PF23R0005 A0001_20230320.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

The subject amendment is issued to add, correct or change identif ied requirements of the Vicenza Military Community (VMC) Construction MATOC solicitation herein. See the Summary of Changes at page 2.

The proposal due date as specified in Block 13A of the SF-1442 solicitation remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Mar-2023

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912PF23R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Mar-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Mar-2023

CODE

414TH CSB RCO ITALY

414TH CSB - RCO ITALY

VIA DELLA PACE #197

36100 VICENZA

ITALY

W912PF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PF23R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following requirements of W912PF23R0005 have been amended as follows:

L.2.2.2 is replaced in its entirety;

L.2.3.1 is replaced in its entirety;

L.3.1 is replaced in its entirety;

L.4.2.1.3 is replaced in its entirety;

L.4.3.1 is replaced in its entirety;

L.5.5 is added;

M.2.1 (definition of “significant weakness”) is corrected; and M.3.4.2 is corrected

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

L.1.1 Offerors shall strictly adhere to the requirements herein when preparing the proposal submission in response to this RFP. All proposals shall be in English. The Government will not reimburse any cost incurred in response to this RFP. Proposals that fail to comply with the proposal submittal requirements set forth in this section may be deemed unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award. Furthermore, proposals shall be submitted PRIOR TO THE DATE AND TIME specified within this RFP. Proposals received after the date and time specified for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208.

L.1.2 All RFP documents, to include any amendments issued after RFP issuance, shall be posted to Contract Opportunities at SAM.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to monitor the website for any amendments to the solicitation, and incorporate signed amendments within the offeror’s proposal submission.

L.1.3 To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and sub-factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale for Government evaluation. The submitted proposal shall consist of three (3) separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Volume I Mission Capability & Technical Volume II Past Performance Volume III Price & Contract Documents

These three (3) Volumes MUST be submitted in paper only with the inclusion of a CD containing the original proposal for Government electronic filing. Detailed proposal format requirements and limitations are listed within this section, below. NO form of electronic proposal documents (fax, email, etc.) will be accepted by RCO-I.

L.1.4 The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet those requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their organization and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

L.1.5 Proposal Validity The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation, within Volume III, that the proposal is valid through 30 October 2023.

L.1.6 Government Points of Contact (POC) The Contracting Officer is the only individual with authority to enter into the MATOC awards, Mr. Jeffrey S. Morris, jeffrey.s.morris16.civ@army.mil, and as such, the CO shall be included in all clarification requests and proposal submission questions. However, the CO has designated the primary POC for such requests and questions to Ms. Ingrid V. Smith, ingrid.v.smith.civ@army.mil.

L.1.7 Pre-Proposal Conference A Conference will be hosted by RCO-I and the customer, DPW.

The date, time and location of the Conference will be posted to https://sam.gov/content/opportunities no later than 10 Mar 2023 in order for potential offerors to coordinate attendance, as necessary.

This will be the only pre-proposal conference. Accordingly, offerors shall be prepared to address questions, concerns and/or feedback regarding the Government’s requirements and the sample projects identified at L.4.2 and its subparts herein and Attachments 2 and 3. To ensure efficiency and value of time, offerors are requested to submit questions in advance of the conference, to the primary POC specified at L.1.6 above, no later than two (2) business days prior to the Conference. Offerors will have an opportunity to address additional questions/comments during the conference as well. Questions & Answers (Q&A) from the conference will be posted to https://sam.gov/content/opportunities approximately five (5) business days following the conference. Offerors are advised the solicitation will remain unchanged unless it is specifically amended in writing. Amendments, if/as issued, shall be posted to https://sam.gov/content/opportunities.

L.1.8 Requests for Information (RFI) Offerors may submit RFIs to the primary POC at L.1.6 up to 3:00 PM, local time, 04 Apr 2023. Depending on the volume of RFIs received, the Contracting Team will work to post responses (via https://sam.gov/content/opportunities) by close of business Friday, each week, through the last RFI response posting, 07 Apr 2023. As noted at L.1.7, the solicitation will remain unchanged unless specifically amended in writing, with the intent of RFI responses being clarifying in nature to all potential offerors.

L.1.9 Offerors are advised the Government reserves the right to award this MATOC effort based on initial proposals received, without discussions.

L.2 Proposal Format and Organization

L.2.1 Offerors shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below.

The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limitations and include the number of copies, as specified. Each proposal Volume shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder. A single CD of the entire proposal (All Volumes within one CD) shall be included. Do not submit one CD per each Volume.

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE ORIGINAL +

COPIES

PAGE

LIMITATIONS

I Mission Capability & Technical 1 + 3 40 II Past Performance 1 + 3 15 III Price & Contract Documents* 1 + 1 25

*Includes: signed SF 1442, signed Amendments, proposal exceptions and rationale, Certificate of Chamber of Commerce, DURC, Anti-Mafia Self-Certification, etc.

L.2.2 Page Format, Size and Limitations

L.2.2.1 Page Size Proposal pages shall be standard letter size (8-1/2” x 11”), or equivalent Italian letter size. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, Gantt charts, milestone schedules and timelines, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11” x 17” in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and shall count as two pages. Foldout pages are permitted for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, not for pages of text.

L.2.2.2 Page Format Text font and size shall be Times New Roman, 12-point, respectively (no less than 10-point size is acceptable for tables, charts, graphs, etc., whether fold-out or standard size, as defined at L.2.2.1 above). Use 1” margins on the top and bottom and ¾” side margins. All pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume, e.g., “Vol II, pg. 4.”

When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages.

L.2.2.3 Page limitations shall be treated as maximums and apply to the hard copy and electronic copy proposals. If exceeded, the excess pages will NOT be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Each page shall be counted except for the following: cover pages, tables of content, list of tables or figures, list of appendices, and exceptions noted elsewhere within Section L below. Elaborate brochures, marketing documentations, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary, not desired, and may impact review of proposal details should these be included and result in exceeding page limitations cited.

L.2.3 Binding and Labeling

L.2.3.1 Binding Each proposal volume shall be separately bound in a two, three, or four-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. No staples shall be used.

L.2.3.2 Labeling Each binder shall include a cover sheet, clearly marked as to the volume number, title, copy number, solicitation number, and the offeror’s name. The same identifying data shall be placed on the spine of each binder, and affixed to the CD case and CD of the electronic proposal copy. Offerors shall ensure proposals are marked in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) and FAR 3.104-4, as appropriate.

L.3 Proposal Submission

L.3.1 Proposals packages, in accordance with the requirements of Section L herein, shall be marked as follows and delivered via an authorized carrier with tracking capability, such as DHL, to the address and POCs listed below. NO electronic proposals will be accepted.

414th Contracting Support Brigade, RCO-Italy Attn: Jeffrey Morris or Ingrid Smith Caserma Ederle, Building 3 Viale Della Pace, 193 36100 Vicenza Italy

All proposals must be received no later than 18 Apr 2023, 15:00 Central European Time (CET). Received is defined as the date and time of receipt to Caserma Ederle, Building 3.

L.3.2 Hand-carried proposal delivery may be received and accepted at the address shown above and in accordance with the following delivery instructions. Delivery may be completed between 09:00-11:00 AM or 13:00-15:00 PM Central European Time and coordinated with the primary POC, Ingrid Smith via ingrid.v.smith.civ@army.mil or +39 0444.71.6874. The date for delivery shall be coordinated at least one business day in advance, with no hand delivery occurring on the proposal due date. Offerors electing to hand deliver a proposal are advised they may be unable to access Caserma Ederle without a valid DoD Common Access Card (CAC). Furthermore, regardless of CAC status, offerors are advised vehicles may be subject to a random vehicle search, and/or unexpected delays at the date are possible, and thus, plan accordingly.

L.4 Evaluation Factors

L.4.1 Factor One: Technical

L.4.1.1 The offeror shall describe and detail the technical approach to the following sample projects: Project E8-41139-1J “Replace Roof on Building 249” and Project E8-44024-2J “Repairs in Mechanical Room Building 108.” SOWs for the sample projects are provided at Attachment 2 and 3, respectively. Offerors shall describe and detail a single technical approach to complete both DB requirements in accordance with the associated SOW, at the same time, as specified herein.

L.4.1.2 The offeror shall provide a written narrative describing their technical approach for both projects to include an integrated Gantt chart (excluded from page limitations) outlining all Definable Features of Work (DFOW) showing a logical sequence of events and complete construction for the full duration of the projects.

L.4.1.3 The offeror’s approach shall detail personnel anticipated for the projects within its own firm, and if any subcontractors utilized. If common personnel are used, a description of how those work efforts are integrated to ensure no delay to either project shall be detailed.

L.4.1.4 The offeror shall identify risks associated in completion with the projects, as well as mitigations to each risk identified.

L.4.1.5 The offeror shall identify recommendations to the Government regarding SOW details to demonstrate an understanding of the work scope for each project and potentially improve project timeline and/or final construction.

L.4.2 Factor Two: Mission Capability

Offerors shall provide a proposal that addresses the elements at the Mission Capability sub-factors herein.

L.4.2.1 Sub-Factor One: Project Management Plan

L.4.2.1.1 Offerors shall provide a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for implementation of this MATOC. The PMP shall have an Executive Summary discussing the management approach used for DB and DBB requirements. The discussion should consider typical projects approach to multi-disciplinary construction, restoration, repair and demolition. The PMP should discuss the management process from RFP (or TOPR) through the closeout out and turn-over of the site to the customer. The plan should discuss management when multiple concurrent task orders (TO) could be awarded.

L.4.2.1.2 The PMP shall include organizational chart(s) that clearly identifies the management, design, and construction teams, and key personnel to be utilized in executing task orders under the contract. Arrange the chart by organizational levels and location, depicting lines of authority.

The chart should show the interrelationship between all levels of leadership within the offeror’s organizational structure, to include the contract management team and on-site project teams.

L.4.2.1.3 The PMP shall include an explanation of the total project team management approach for both the construction team and design team, to include subcontractors, along with letters of commitment from key subcontractors, agreements with Design firms/Designers, including documentation of such professional agreements in place, hiring of qualified key project and/or support staff, the approach to managing the project and accounting for fluctuations in the workload, subcontract management, execution of architectural and engineering design requirements throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall note, Associazione Temporaneae di Imprese, in Italy, will not be considered for award under this solicitation. In addition, résumé for the Project Manager(s) (PM), Site Superintendents (SS), Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO) shall be included. The resumes shall include relevant experience and/or certifications to demonstrate his/her ability to successfully oversee projects under the MATOC. All resumes, professional agreements, and letters of commitment (from key subcontractors) applicable to meeting requirements of this paragraph are excluded from page count limitations specified above.

L.4.2.1.4 The PMP shall clearly and concisely detail and describe monitoring and control mechanisms to deliver a quality product and effectively manage the subcontractors on the team, as well as the ability to coordinate all work throughout the construction phases. Additionally, offerors shall address how they will resolve differing site conditions or design deficiency discovered during the construction phase.

L.4.2.1.5 The offeror shall describe the communication plan during the design and construction process. The authorities and the delegations of authority within the team with appropriate references to the organization chart for clarity shall be identified. The offeror shall describe any previous teaming experience between proposed team members. The offeror shall include a general description of the work the offeror will perform within its own entity.

L.4.2.1.6 The offeror shall describe resources available and capabilities to support the MATOC contract task orders concurrently with other projected on-going and/or new work. The offeror shall describe resources available (i.e. in-house design & construction personnel, subcontractor personnel, ability to partner with other firms, etc.) and capabilities to manage and execute several (specified by offeror) concurrent task orders, which may be located at various locations in the USAG Italy VMC.

L.4.2.2 Sub-Factor Two: Societa Organismi di Attestazione (SOA) Certifications

L.4.2.2.1 Offeror shall provide proof of SOA qualification levels as stated herein. Proof of qualification shall be via applicable SOA certificate submission, as follows:

Primary Category:

OG 1: Edifici civili e industraili

“Civil and Industrial Buildings Construction” Classification II (or higher)

Minor Category OG 3 Strade, autostrade, ponti, viadotti, ferrovi, metropolitan

“Roads, motorways, bridges, railways, underground railways” Classification I (or higher)

OG 6 Acquedotti, gasdotti, oleodotti, opera di irrigazion e di evazcuazione “Water, gas and oil pipelines and irrigation and drainage works” Classification I (or higher)

OG 11: Impianti tecnoligici “Technological Plants Utility Systems” Classification I (or higher)

OG 12 Opere ed impianti di bonifica e protezion ambientale “Remediation and environmental protection works and systems” Classification I (or higher)

L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance

L.4.3.1 The offeror shall provide up to five (5) recent and relevant contracts in order for the Government to evaluate its confidence in successful performance of MATOC requirements.

Recent is defined as contract performance to 100% completion within the last five (5) years, starting from the solicitation close date. Relevance is defined as the same or similar magnitude, work scope and complexity to the requirements of the MATOC task orders anticipated from this contract. Accordingly, cited contracts shall include/specify the following:

1. Customer POC, Title, and Email

2. Contract Number

3. Design Build or Design Bid Build (specify) construction projects which include at least two of the following: comprehensive building renovation, vertical construction, electrical distribution, HVAC, lighting, telephone and communication systems, security systems, plumbing, fire protection, interior renovation, anti-terrorism/force protection, roofing, landscaping, and/or irrigation. Offeror shall provide a summary of contract work scope.

4. Minimum contract value of € 250,000.00 Maximum of € 1,000,000.00, at time of contract award

5. Performance in Italy

6. Offeror performance as the prime contractor

7. Period of Performance to construction completion

8. Summary of modifications and rationale for, if applicable (contract value increase/decrease and rationale shall be specified)

9. Customer completed, by POC at #1 above, Past Performance Survey at Attachment 4

(surveys are excluded from the page limitations)

A minimum of three (3) cited contracts shall be with the U.S. Government. Remaining contracts may be with local governments or commercial entities. At least one DB and one DBB project shall be included. Contracts submitted in excess of the maximum five (5) will not be evaluated.

L.4.3.2 The Government may contact the POCs provided in order to obtain additional past performance data, on the cited contracts, or general past performance with the offeror.

L.4.3.3 The Government reserves the right to utilize additional past performance data to include, but not limited to Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) reports and additional Government or commercial entity personnel interviews and/or surveys.

L.4.4 Price

L.4.4.1 Offerors shall propose an hourly direct (unburdened) labor rate (one-hour only) for the following labor categories:

Project Manager Site Superintendent Quality Assurance Safety and Health Officer General Laborer

L.4.4.2 The price proposal shall be proposed via a single Microsoft Excel file sheet, including all five (5) labor categories noted above. No sum of the one-hour labor rates is required.

L.5 Contract Documentation

A complete, responsive proposal shall include/submit all required documents and actions as specified in Contract Documentation herein.

L.5.1 SF1442, Executed Clauses & Provisions, and Representations and Certifications

L.5.1.1 Submission of this information supports the Government’s preparation of the contract document and supporting file. Offerors shall include a signed copy of the solicitation (SF1442 Request for proposal) and completed copies of Sections A through K. Offerors are required to complete all blocks requiring offeror information/response. Signature by the offeror constitutes a proposal, which the Government may accept. The “original” copy should be clearly marked and placed in the appropriate Original Volume III, per Section L instructions herein.

L.5.2 Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)

L.5.2.1 Offerors shall submit a copy of their DURC that is no older than 90 days from the solicitation close date. The document must include the following statement: “Con il presente document si dichiara che l’impresa RISULTA REGOLARE ai fini del DURC.” A document equivalent to DURC, issued by the government agency/authority of any member country within the European Union is acceptable for non-Italian offerors. The applicable agency/authority must certify, in English, the document is equivalent to the Italian DURC. Self-certifications (autocertificazioni) are NOT authorized.

L.5.3 Certificate of Chamber of Commerce

L.5.3.1 Offerors shall provide a copy of their Chamber of Commerce Certificate of Membership (Certificato di Iscrizione alla Camera di Commercio) that is less than 6 months old from the solicitation close date.

L.5.4 Anti-Mafia / White List

L.5.4.1 Offerors shall provide a self-certification Anti-Mafia communication via RFP Attachment 5. In addition, if the offeror has been subjected to a recent Anti-Mafia screening and affirmatively added to the White List, the offeror shall submit a screen print from the site (http://www.prefettura.it/vicenza/download.php?coming=Y29udGVudXRpL1doaXRlX2xpc3Rf YW50aW1hZmlhLTY0NDcxLmh0bQ==&f=Spages&file=L0ZJTEVTL0FsbGVnYXRp UGFnLzEyMjgvQW50aW1hZmlhXy1fV2hpdGVfTGlzdF8tX0ltcHJlc2VfaXNjcml0dGVfLW5 1b3ZvLS54bHN4&id_sito=1228&s=download.php), or dated certificate otherwise, reflecting current White List approval.

L.5.5 Consorzio Certificate

L.5.5.1 Offerors shall provide a certified copy (copia autenticata) of their notarized document that established the Pool of Firms (Consorzio) proposing on this solicitation. The certification shall include names and addresses of the associated firms proposed to perform the work.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Contract Award

M.1.1 This is a best value continuum source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101, utilizing the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection approach. The Government will select the highest technically rated proposals that are also found to have a reasonable price without using trade-offs between price and technical (i.e., non-price factors). The HTRO process selects the highest rated offerors based on the non-price factors stated herein, and awards to those highest-rated proposals that also offer fair and reasonable prices.

M.1.2 Up to eight (8) contracts may be awarded to offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L herein) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value, as the HTROs, to the Government.

M.1.3 Offerors are advised the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications, or any exchanges regarding the proposals received. Offerors shall submit their best offer, with most favorable terms from all aspects, terms and conditions of the requirement. Offerors shall NOT assume an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise proposals will occur, however, the Government reserves the right to discuss aspects of proposals with offerors, as authorized and appropriate.

M.1.4 Proposals received after the date and time established at Block 13A of the SF1442 shall be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208.

M.2 Proposal Evaluation

M.2.1 Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors and adjectival rating criteria established within this section. Relative deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, strengths, significant strengths, all defined below, and risks supporting proposal evaluation and rating shall be documented to support the source selection decision.

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.

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness: a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty: any aspect of a 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 there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Strength: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the government during contract performance.

M.2.2 Competitive Range Upon conclusion of the initial proposal evaluation and ratings, if Discussions are determined to be necessary, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Discussions will only be conducted with those offerors within the competitive range. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions (FPR) from said competitive range offerors, who will submit FPRs for final Government evaluation, and finally, source selection decision of the most highly rated offerors, in accordance with the established factors and criteria herein.

M.3 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M.3.1 Award will be made to (up to eight (8)) offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor One: Technical

Factor Two: Mission Capability Subfactor One: Project Management Plan Subfactor Two: SOA Certifications Factor Three: Past Performance Factor Four: Price

M.3.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: Non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance, with the two subfactors also being equal in importance. As there is no trade-off of Price to occur, solely the Contracting Officer’s fair and reasonable price determination via the HTRO process, price has no relative order of importance in this source selection.

M.3.3 Evaluation Factor One Technical Rating shall be an evaluation of the offeror’s proposal submitted in accordance with Section L.4.1 instructions from L.4.1.1 through L.4.1.5. Based on the assessment of the offeror’s technical approach to the aforementioned Section L requirements, and applicable proposal deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, strengths, significant strengths, and/or uncertainties, the Technical Evaluation Team shall assign a color and adjectival rating in accordance with the Table 1 below.

Table 1

Color Rating

Adjectival 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 unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

M.3.4 Evaluation of Factor Two: Mission Capability, to include Subfactors One and Two:

Project Management Plan and SOA Certifications

M.3.4.1 The Government’s Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate the Mission Capability proposals as submitted in accordance with Section L instructions and requirements via the color and adjectival ratings as described at Table 1 above.

M.3.4.2 Factor Two Mission Capability Rating shall be assigned based on the two subfactor ratings, Performance Management Plan (PMP) and SOA Certifications, respectively. A PMP subfactor rating of “Red-Unacceptable” and/or a SOA Certifications subfactor rating of “Red- Unacceptable” will render the Factor Two Mission Capability factor as “Red-Unacceptable” and therefore, unawardable.

M.3.4.2.1 Subfactor One, PMP shall be an evaluation of the offeror’s proposal submitted in accordance with Section L.4.2.1 instructions from L.4.2.1.1 through L.4.2.1.6. Based on the assessment of the offeror’s PMP approach to the aforementioned Section L requirements, and applicable proposal deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, strengths, significant strengths, and/or uncertainties, the Technical Evaluation Team shall assign a color and adjectival rating in accordance with the Table 1 above.

M.3.4.2.2 Subfactor Two, SOA Certifications, shall be an evaluation of the offeror’s proposal submitted, providing proof of the Primary SOA qualification level as stated at L.4.2.2.1: OG 1: Edifici civili e industraili “Civil and Industrial Buildings Construction” Classification II (or higher). The Primary SOA qualification certificate shall result in an Offeror being assigned a “Green-Acceptable” rating. SOA certificates provided for any of the Minor Category SOAs identified at L.4.2.2.1 may result in an offeror being assigned proposal strengths, with subfactor rating assignment reflecting said strengths, as appropriate. An offeror who fails to provide the Primary SOA qualification certificate shall be assigned a deficiency, and thus, “Red-Unacceptable” at the subfactor level, regardless of any Minor Category SOA certificate submissions.

M.3.4.3 Only those proposals assigned, at a minimum, a PMP subfactor rating of “Yellow- Marginal” and SOA Certifications subfactor rating of “Green-Acceptable”, for a Mission Capability Factor rating of “Yellow-Marginal,” either initially or as a result of discussions, may be considered for award. However, offerors are reminded the Government reserves the right to award MATOCs based on initial proposals received, without discussion.

M.3.5 Factor Three Past Performance Rating shall be an evaluation to determine the relevancy of recent (recent and relevant as defined and set forth at L.4.3.1) efforts performed by the offeror in accordance with Table 2 below. Additionally, the evaluation shall also assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of this solicitation based on the demonstrated record of performance of the proposed recent, to-be-evaluated, relevant contracts. Confidence assessments shall be assigned in accordance with the confidence ratings at Table 3 below.

Table 2

Adjectival Rating

Description

Very Relevant Present / Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of efforts 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 3

Adjectival Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

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

M.3.5.1 In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and therefore, assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

M.3.5.2 While the Past Performance Evaluation Team may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff, provided this determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

M.3.5.3 In accordance with L.4.3.3, the Government reserves the right to utilize additional past performance data to include, but not limited to CPARS, FAPIIS, eSRS, and additional Government or commercial entity personnel interviews and/or surveys.

M.3.6 Factor Four Price Upon selection of the highest technically rated proposals based on the evaluation and comparative assessment of the Non-Price factors as set forth at M.3.3 to M.3.6 and its subparts, the HTRO source selection process shall evaluate Price proposals of said highest technically (Non-Price factors) rated for purposes of a fair and reasonableness determination, by the Contracting Officer.

M.3.6.1 Labor category (one-hour) pricing required at L.4.4 and its subparts shall be evaluated for a fair and reasonable price utilizing one of the price analysis techniques as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), with the exception of competition. Competition among offerors shall not be the basis for a fair and reasonable determination under the requirement herein.

M.3.6.2 Up to eight (8), highest technically rated proposals that are also found to have a fair and reasonable price as set forth above, shall be deemed the HTROs and subject to the Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination and required document completion as established at M.4 below, prior to MATOC award.

M.4 Contract Documentation is not subject to an evaluation factor assessment, but the documentation required at L.5 and its subparts shall be included to ensure conformance to requirements. A proposal that fails to submit ANY required document or complete required actions may be deemed an incomplete, non-responsive proposal, and therefore, excluded from proposal evaluations, and thus, not considered for MATOC award.

(End of Summary of Changes)