B08-W912PF26RA011_AMD0001_SF30_20260810.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

perform the following changes (additions are provided in blue font and deletions in red):

1. Provide additional Government Point of Contact (POC) which resulted in the following updated sections and attachment:

a. RFP Section 1.2.1. Government POC

b. RFP Attachment: B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT C_PPQ_AMD01

2. Revise the Corporate Experience (Factor 2.1) in response to industry feedback received during pre-proposal inquiries (PPI) received. Specifically,

a. Section 4.2.1.1.1(e) from five (5) years to eight (8) years.

b. Sections 4.2.1.1.1(a) and 4.2.1.2. to clarify Secondary Attribute experience does NOT need to be demonstrated within a project meeting the size and core sewer/basin scope relevancy requirements to be credited.

3. Provide Government responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) #1 - 14.

4. Distribute the following attachments:

a. Revised RFP Attachment:

i. B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT C_PPQ_AMD01

a. Site Visit Details:

i. B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT E_SITE VISIT_ROUTE

ii. B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT F_SITE VISIT_PHOTOS iii.B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT G_SITE VISIT_ATTENDANCE_Redacted

b. Section 01 00 00 ATTACHMENTS

i. B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT06_THIRD_PARTY_AGENCY_DOCS ii.B08-W912PF26RA011_ATT07_PPI LOG_20260810

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. GENERAL OVERVIEW & PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.2 GOVERNMENT POINTS OF CONTACT (POC)

1.3 SPECIAL NOTICE TO OFFERORS

W912PF26RA0110001

1.4 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

1.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.6 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES

1.7 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES

1.8 SPECIAL JOINT VENTURE (JV) AND OTHER AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS

1.9 MANDATORY DOCUMENTATION (VOLUME V)

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

C. FACTORS AND WEIGHTS

D. RATINGS AND FACTORS EVALUATION

E. INCORPORATION OF PROPOSAL BENEFICIAL ASPECTS

F. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) USE

G. PROPOSAL ATTACHEMENTS

A. GENERAL OVERVIEW & PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.1.1. This Design-Bid-Build project is to repair the existing old and failed storm water and sanitary sewer main systems of the entire Miotto base. The primary objective of this contract is to repair, upsize, and decouple the sewer systems to achieve environmental compliance and prevent future flood damage.

1.1.2. This acquisition is being issued on an UNRESTRICTED basis with full and open competition, as a Design-Bid-Build procurement conducted as a negotiated procurement utilizing procedures in accordance with RFO FAR Part 36. The best value continuum source selection process used in this acquisition is the tradeoff process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors (i.e., Technical Approach, Experience, and Past Performance) and price and allows the Government to accept proposals other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Award will be made to that responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to offer the best value to the Government, considering the technical and price factors stated herein.

1.1.3. The appropriate Northern American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 237110 and the size standard is $45M.

1.1.4. This acquisition will be advertised utilizing RFO FAR Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation and RFO FAR Part 36 - Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts.

1.1.5. This acquisition will result in a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract for Design-Bid-Build construction services. The resultant contract will be awarded and paid in Euros. Funding obligations will be calculated and executed in U.S. Dollars ($) based on the official Department of Defense (DoD) Foreign Currency Fluctuation (FCF) budget rate established for the fiscal year of the award. For reference, the current Fiscal Year 2026 DoD budget rate is $1.00 USD = 0.9303.

1.1.6. The magnitude of construction for this project is between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.

1.1.7. Offerors are advised the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on initial proposals received, without discussions (RFO FAR 52.215-1). Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

1.1.8. The Government will not reimburse proposal preparation costs. Proposals shall not contain classified data, and the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

1.2. GOVERNMENT POINTS OF CONTACT (POC)

1.2.1. The designated POCs for this solicitation are listed below. All formal communications, question submissions, and Site Visit RSVPs must be sent electronically to all representatives.

Information received from other sources is not official and will not bind the Government:

Contracting Officer: Daniel Veenstra, daniel.l.veenstra.civ@army.mil

Contracting Officer: Stacey Miller, stacey.l.miller45.civ@army.mil

Contract Specialist: Mitchell McGillick, mitchell.t.mcgillick.mil@army.mil

Contract Specialist: Dylan Hanback, dylan.j.hanback.mil@army.mil

1.3. SPECIAL NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.3.1. General Instructions: Offerors shall prepare proposals strictly adhering to these instructions.

Proposals shall be clear, concise, and provide sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Do not merely rephrase Government requirements; provide convincing rationale demonstrating how you will meet them. The Government assumes no prior knowledge of the offeror's organization or experience and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the proposal.

1.3.2. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as the sole responsibility of the Offeror. Failure to comply with submission requirements, failing to submit attachments, or failing to properly complete the proposal may result in the proposal being deemed unacceptable and ineligible for award without further evaluation.

1.3.3. Offerors must meet all technical portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical or other requirements of the RFP.

1.3.4. Proposal Validity: The proposal acceptance period is the number of calendar days specified in Block 13(d) of the SF1442 unless the Offeror specifies a longer time period. If desired, Offerors shall indicate an acceptance period greater than the number of calendar days at Block 17 of the

SF1442.

1.4. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

1.4.1. Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit: An organized site visit and pre-proposal conference is scheduled for: .05 August 2026 at 09:30 Central European Time (CET)

1.4.2. RSVP & Attendance Limits: Attendance at the site visit is strictly by RSVP and is limited to a maximum of four (4) representatives per firm (comprised of two (2) prime contractor representatives, one (1) synthetic turf subcontractor representative, and one (1) landscaping subcontractor representative). Offerors must email all POCs identified in Section 1.2 no later than with the subject line "W912PF26RA011 Site Visit - [Offeror Name]". The 31 July 2026, 15:00 CET email must contain the full first and last name of each attendee, their specific role/specialty, and the official company name. The Government will provide specific base access instructions, meeting locations, and safety/security protocols in response to the RSVP email. Specifically, for those who do not have a Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS) card with access to Caserma Miotto, a copy of the carta di identita/ identification document (front and back pages) for each individual requiring access must be submitted

1.4.3. This is the sole site visit for this solicitation. Oral remarks at the conference shall not modify the solicitation. Formal responses to all questions will be posted to SAM.gov via an amendment.

1.5. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.5.1. Proposal Organization, Formatting, and Volume Structure: Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted as indicated below. Proposal shall contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror's e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, DUNS (or Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)), and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision RFO FAR 52.215-1(c)(2).

1.5.2. Table of Contents: Proposals shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number (e.g., "Volume I, Page 1 of 15").

1.5.3. Page Size: Proposals shall be typed and standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size. Text shall be minimally single-spaced with a Times New Roman, 12-point font and standard one-inch margins all around. A font size of no less than 10-point is acceptable for headers, footers, and text within tables, charts, and figures. Technical schedules, drawings, and/or sketches may be submitted on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch, with each 11 x 17-inch sheet counting as one page toward page limits.

1.5.4. Page Limitations: Any sheet with printed material shall be considered a page. Page limitations shall be treated as maximum. If exceeded within a volume, the excess pages will NOT be read or evaluated.

1.5.4.1 Excluded from Page Count: Each page shall be counted except for the following: cover pages, section dividers, Table of Contents, Lists of Tables/Figures, letters of commitment, resumes, training certificates, organizational chart, team agreements, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, and/or Joint Venture agreements.

1.5.5. Price information contained in the technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, technical information contained in the price proposal will not be considered.

1.5.6. Proprietary Data and Disclosure Restrictions: Any information presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision RFO FAR 52.215-1(e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States Law and Regulations.

1.5.7. The proposal shall address the base requirement and all options.

1.5.8. Each factor/volume must be submitted as a separate, clearly labeled electronic file (e.g., "Volume I - Technical Approach.pdf") in accordance with the following structure:

Volume I

Factor 1: Technical Approach (15 Pages Maximum)

Subfactor 1.1 Construction Execution Plan

Subfactor 1.2 Project Schedule

Subfactor 1.3 Third-Party and Community Coordination

Subfactor 1.4 Management Structure & Approach

Volume II

Factor 2: Experience (15 Pages Maximum)

Subfactor 2.1 Corporate Experience

Subfactor 2.2 Key Personnel Experience

Volume III

Factor 3: Past Performance (5 Pages Maximum*)

Volume IV

Factor 4: Price (No Page Limit)

Volume V

Solicitation Forms & Mandatory Documents (No Page Limit)

(*Page count only applies to first page of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), if applicable)

1.5.9. Electronic Submission and Timeliness: All proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF format through the Partner Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module (https://piee.eb.mil). Only the PIEE Solicitation Module is authorized for electronic proposal submissions. Emailed, hard copy, and/or hand-delivered submissions will not be considered or accepted. All proposal documents shall be submitted in the English language, with the exception of official Italian host-nation certifications and registrations (e.g., SOA, DURC, and Chamber of Commerce filings), which may be submitted in their original Italian language format.

1.5.9.1. Electronic proposal submissions should be no larger than 1.9 GB per file.

1.5.9.2. The PIEE system-recorded timestamp of package submittal shall govern timeliness.

Proposals must be received in PIEE no later than the date and time specified in Block 13A of the

SF 1442.

1.5.9.3. Late proposals will be treated in accordance with RFO FAR 52.215-1 and RFO FAR 15.107(b) and may be rejected. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit early to avoid potential last-minute technical upload issues.

1.6 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI)

1.6.1. Offerors may submit questions using the PPI Form (Attachment A) to all POCs identified in Section 1.2 no later than , 15:00 Central European Time (CET) with the email 11 August 2026 subject line "W912PF26RA011 Q&A {Company Name}". There is no guarantee that questions submitted after this cut-off date will be answered. Responses will be published via an amendment to SAM.gov.

1.7. CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES

1.7.1. All solicitation documents and subsequent amendments (SF 30) will be posted to Contract Opportunities at SAM.gov (https://sam.gov/content/opportunities). Prospective Offerors shall monitor SAM.gov and incorporate signed amendments within their proposal submission.

1.8. SPECIAL JOINT VENTURE (JV) AND OTHER AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS

1.8.1 Joint Venture (JV) Requirements: A Joint Venture refers to a formal Legal Entity in the nature of a Partnership comprised of two or more persons or companies. Temporary associations, temporary groupings, or unincorporated entities are not considered eligible Joint Ventures. In order to be eligible for contract award, a Joint Venture must provide the following using the exact same name of the Joint Venture: (1) One CAGE/NCAGE Code; (2) One UEI, and; (3) One active registration in the Italian Chamber of Commerce Registration (CCR) at https://italianbusinessregister.it/en/chambers-of-commerce (applicable only to Italian Joint Ventures, or the equivalent official business registry of the Joint Venture's home jurisdiction for non-Italian Joint Ventures).

1.8.2. Joint and Several Liability: All joint venture members shall remain jointly, severally, and irrevocably liable for all actions, representations, and performance connected with this solicitation and the whole of the subsequent contract. Failure to comply with the JV requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

1.8.3. Evaluation of JV Proposals: If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and other qualification information about each of the individual joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture and will be considered the collective experience and past performance of the Joint Venture entity.

1.8.4. Required JV Documentation: JV Offerors shall provide, with their proposal in Volume V, a notarized legal document that establishes the JV. The JV shall be formed and valid at the time of proposal submission.

1.8.4.1. Translation Requirements: The notarized legal document establishing the JV must be furnished in its original language along with a certified English translation. The document must include explicit language stating that each member of the JV will be jointly and irrevocably liable for the performance of the whole contract.

1.8.4.1. Mandatory JV Agreement Content: The Joint Venture Agreement shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Name of firms that form the JV and the official name of the JV.

(2) Name and title of the corporate officials signing on behalf of each party.

(3) Solicitation number (W912PF26RA011).

(4) A detailed statement outlining business ownership, capital contribution, and profit/loss sharing percentages, as well as a description of responsibilities in terms of work category for each member (e.g., Firm A performing 100% of Civil).

(5) The statement: "The composition and structure of the JV will remain unchanged from award to one (1) year after contract completion."

(6) Date of issuance of the agreement and notarized signatures of the corporate officials signing on behalf of each party.

(7) A statement under oath signed by all members comprising the Joint Venture stating that the JV is in compliance at the time of proposal submission with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

1.8.5. SF 1442 and Surety Signatures: When submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any required surety instruments (e.g., Bid Guarantee), unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority (Power of Attorney) to bind all member firms.

1.8.6. Irrevocability & Composition Changes: The JV Agreement shall take effect upon submission of the proposal and remain irrevocable until one year after the expiration of contract performance.

Any change in the composition of the JV requires the JV to formally request a Novation Agreement in accordance with RFO FAR 42.9, which remains subject to the sole approval of the Contracting Officer.

1.8.7. Prohibited Host-Nation Agreements: Only offers from single Prime Contractors or formally incorporated Joint Ventures (JV) will be accepted. Offers from an Associazione Temporanea d'Imprese (ATI) or offers utilizing a contract of availment (Contratto di Avvalimento) will not be accepted for this procurement, will be ineligible for contract award, and will be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

1.9. MANDATORY DOCUMENTATION (VOLUME V)

In order to be considered eligible for contract award, an Offeror shall satisfy the below requirements and include all mandatory administrative documents in Volume V. The requirements listed below will not be evaluated or receive an adjectival rating; instead, the RFO FAR Part 9 contractor qualification requirements will be addressed as part of the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. Failure to comply with the Mandatory Documentation requirements may result in the Offeror being deemed non responsible and ineligible for award.

If, prior to award, the Government has questions regarding an Offeror's Mandatory Documentation Volume, the communications and questions are not part of negotiations as defined in RFO FAR 15.204-2.

1.9.1. SF 1442: Executed SF1442. Offeror shall insert its company name and address in Block #14, telephone number in Block #15, acknowledge all amendments in Block #19 (if applicable), name and title of person authorized to sign in Block #20A, signature in Block #20B, and offer date in Block #20C of the SF1442.

1.9.2. Societa' Organismi D'Attestazione (SOA) Certification: The Offeror (Prime Contractor) or its designated Subcontractor(s) must possess and submit proof of a valid SOA Certification in effect as of the proposal due date in accordance with Italian D.P.R. 34/00.

1.9.2.1. The required categories for this project are:

Prevailing Category:

(1) OG6 - Aqueducts, gas and oil pipelines, irrigation and drainage works.

Minor Category:

(2) OG13 - Naturalistic engineering works.

1.9.2.2. Submission of SOA Certification and Compliance with Legislative Decree No. 36/2023:

Offerors shall demonstrate they meet the S.O.A. certification requirements and are in compliance with Articles 94 et seq. of Italian Legislative Decree No. 36/2023. An Offeror shall submit the following as part of its proposal in Volume V:

(1) An unexpired SOA Certificate for all required categories. This certification may be held by the Prime Contractor, a member of the Joint Venture, or a designated subcontractor that will be utilized to meet the qualification standard.

(2) Current self-certification documentation required by Articles 94 et seq. of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023, demonstrating the absence of grounds for exclusion.

(3) If relying on a subcontractor to meet a required SOA category, the Offeror must submit a formal "Teaming Agreement" or "Letter of Commitment" with the subcontractor. This document must identify the subcontractor's specific SOA certificate and the scope and percentage of work they are committed to perform.

(4) If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, the proposal must demonstrate how the JV, as a whole, meets the SOA certification requirements. The submission shall include a description of the responsibilities and percentage of work for each member firm under each required SOA category.

Note: An offeror's proposal will be rejected for failure to provide the current SOA certificates and associated documentation required under this solicitation.

1.9.3. Joint Ventures (JV) Agreements: Joint venture agreements (if applicable) must be submitted in accordance with the strict requirements detailed in Section 1.8.

1.9.4. Anti-Mafia Law Certification: At the time of the Offeror's submission, and through contract award, Offerors and their Subcontractors shall comply with the Italian Anti-Mafia Law 646. Offerors and Subcontractors shall ensure compliance by providing evidence of at least one of the following:

(a) White List Status: Proof of active Anti-Mafia "White List" status as validated by the regional Italian Prefect (Prefettura). If the Offeror has been affirmatively added to the White List, the Offeror may submit a screenshot or downloaded copy from the Offeror's regional Prefect's website (Example for Vicenza: Imprese iscritte - Prefettura - Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Vicenza).

(b) Dated Certificate: A copy of a dated certificate otherwise reflecting current White List approval status.

(c) Chamber of Commerce Certificate: A copy of the Offeror's original Certificato di Iscrizione alla Camera di Commercio (applicable to Italian offerors), unexpired and not older than six (6) months at the date of proposal submission. This certificate must be inclusive of the anti-mafia nulla osta statement reading: "Nulla osta ai fini dell'articolo 67 del Decreto Legislativo n. 159 del 6 settembre 2011 (gia Art 10 della legge 31 maggio 1965, n. 575) e successive modificazioni..." or any similar statement having the same legal scope.

(d) A formal Anti-Mafia Self-Declaration in accordance with D.P.R. 445/2000, accompanied by a valid DURC.

1.9.4.1. Offerors and Subcontractors shall ensure compliance through the performance of any subsequent contract with the following Italian Law:

(a) Italian Law No. 646, as of 13 September 1982, and its subsequent integrations and amendments applies. No award shall be made to any Offeror subject to disciplinary actions or proceedings for Mafia-related matters.

(b) Termination under Italian Law No. 646 (Anti-Mafia): During the contract term, if the Contractor, or any Subcontractor, is subject to proceedings or disciplinary actions contemplated by the Anti-Mafia law, the Government may consider this a failure to execute the work and may terminate the Contractor's right to proceed with work under RFO FAR 52.249- 10, incorporated herein.

1.9.5. A current Documento Unico di Regolarita Contributiva (DURC).

1.9.6. System for Award Management (SAM) Entity Registration: SAM registration is required for all Offerors, including joint ventures (registration shall be in the name of the JV). A copy of their current "entity registration" shall be available in the SAM website, at www.sam.gov.

1.9.6.1. Offerors not registered and active, at time of proposal submission and through contract award, may be determined ineligible for contract award. Offerors shall ensure complete, current, and accurate information under the "FAR & DFARS Report," which demonstrates current and complete representations and certifications on the SAM Website.

1.9.6.2. Non-U.S. (foreign, including Italian) Offerors ONLY: Non-U.S. offerors must obtain a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) Code instead of a CAGE Code prior to registering in the SAM database.

NCAGE codes may be obtained at the NCAGE website http://www.dlis.dla.mil/Forms/Form_AC135.

asp.

1.9.7. Corporate Name Changes, Mergers, and Successors in Interest (Novations): If the Offeror has undergone a corporate name change, merger, acquisition, or successorship in interest (e.g., Novation Agreement) where past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS), corporate experience documents, or host-nation certifications (e.g., SOA, DURC) are documented under a previous corporate name, the Offeror must explicitly identify and document this in its proposal.

1.9.7.1. Narrative Cross-Reference: The Offeror shall include a brief narrative mapping the historical entity's name, UEI, and CAGE/NCAGE code to the current bidding entity's information.

This narrative must explain why the names on the records differ from the offeror on the SF 1442.

1.9.7.2. Mandatory Legal Documentation: The Offeror must submit formal legal proof of the transition within Volume V. Acceptable documentation includes a copy of the executed Government Novation Agreement, official host-nation registration of name change, or certified copies of Italian Chamber of Commerce (Camera di Commercio) filings documenting the legal merger, acquisition, or asset transfer. Failure to provide clear, legally binding documentation linking the current offeror to the historical records may result in those records being excluded from evaluation and rated as "Neutral" or "Unacceptable."

1.10. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Disclosure: The Offeror shall state whether AI tools or systems (e.g., generative AI models such as Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, etc.) were utilized to assist in the drafting, formulation, or generation of any portion of their proposal. If AI tools were utilized, the Offeror shall explicitly identify the specific AI tool(s) used and briefly describe the extent of their application in the proposal preparation process.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1. Best Value Tradeoff: The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. This will be a best-value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with the RFO FAR Part 15.

2.2. Evaluation of Options: The Government will evaluate the price for the base requirement and all options. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government for the base requirement and any options the Government chooses to exercise at the time of award. The Government may award any combination of options. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to price all options competitively. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise any options.

2.3. Intent to Award Without Discussions: In accordance with RFO FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in RFO FAR 15.202(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

2.4. Competitive Range and Negotiations: The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract, and to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.5. Proposal Deficiencies and Weaknesses: Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may also be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

C. FACTORS AND WEIGHTS

3.1. Evaluation Factors: The following factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals:

3.1.1. Technical Factors

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Subfactors 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4)

Factor 2: Experience (Subfactors 2.1, 2.2)

3.1.2. Non-Technical Factor

Factor 3: Past Performance

3.1.3. Price

Factor 4: Price

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent and relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

3.2. Relative Order of Importance: In making the best value award decision, the Government will consider all technical, past performance, and price factors in a descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Most Important)

Factor 2: Experience (Less Important than Factor 1)

Factor 3: Past Performance (Less Important than Factor 2)

Factor 4: Price (Less Important than Factor 3)

3.2.1. Subfactors: Within Factors 1 & 2, subfactors are listed in descending order of importance:

Subfactor 1.1 is the most important, followed by 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.

Subfactor 2.1 is more important than Subfactor 2.2.

3.2.2. Combined Importance: The non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor (Factor 4). As proposals become more equal in their evaluated technical merit, the evaluated Price will become more important.

3.2.3. Key Discriminator (Differentiator): Factor 3 (Past Performance) is considered a distinguishing factor; while not rated equally with Factors 1 and 2, the Government's confidence in an offeror's past performance may be used as a key discriminator in the tradeoff analysis when differentiating between proposals of similar technical merit and price.

3.2.4. Statement of Tradeoff: The evaluation process permits tradeoffs between price and non-price factors and allows the Government to award the contract to other than the lowest priced or the highest rated technical proposal.

3.3. Relationship Between Technical and Price Factors: While the Price Factor will not be adjectivally rated, the information provided in the price proposal, specifically the direct cost breakdown on the Price Proposal Form, may assist in evaluating Factor 1. An unrealistically low direct cost for a critical feature of work may be interpreted as a lack of technical understanding or buy-in and may be assessed as a Technical Risk, Weakness, or Deficiency under Factor 1.

D. RATING AND FACTORS EVALUATION

4.0. Technical Evaluation Method (Factors 1 and 2): Evaluators will apply an adjectival rating that most closely matches the evaluation of the proposal. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance or capability requirements through an assessment of Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, Deficiencies, Uncertainties, and risks. In accordance with RFO DFARS PGI 215.200 and the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) memorandum dated 20 August 2022, entitled "Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures," the Government will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings and definitions listed below to evaluate and assign ratings for Factor 1 and Factor 2.

Technical Risk. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror's proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2022).

Deficiency: Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission (See RFO 15.001).

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2022).

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 (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2022).

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

(See RFO 15.001).

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See RFO 15.001).

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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) (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2022).

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2022):

Outstanding (Blue): 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.

Good (Purple): 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.

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

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

Unacceptable (Red): 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.

4.1. Factor 1: Technical Approach. This factor evaluates the offeror's proposed methods and comprehensive plan to successfully execute the 100% complete design provided by the Government, assessing the understanding of complexities detailed in the Statement of Work (SOW). This factor will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings in Table 1.

4.1.1. Subfactor 1.1: Construction Execution Plan

4.1.1.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit a detailed narrative and plan for constructing the project. The plan must explicitly address the phased construction approach, methods for managing work along active roadways, techniques for working in environmentally sensitive areas, and overall site logistics.

4.1.1.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will assess the plan for its thoroughness, realism, and clear demonstration of understanding the project's specific challenges. A narrative work plan that identifies areas of risk in site logistics and provides a comprehensive contingency plan that addresses mitigation of any identified risks with potential solutions, may be considered more favorably. As part of this evaluation, the Government may consider the direct cost breakdown provided on the Price Proposal Form (Attachment D). A breakdown that significantly understates the cost for a critical feature of work may be considered as evidence of a lack of understanding of the project's complexity or buy-in and may negatively impact the rating for this subfactor.

4.1.2. Subfactor 1.2: Project Schedule

4.1.2.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit a preliminary/draft schedule showing how they intend to manage the timing of all administrative and on-site activities. The schedule must show the offeror's ability to achieve the schedule and meet all the requirements of the RFP (including 15 days for insurance and bond approval). The schedule shall be based on a contract award date of September 2026. This date is for proposal purposes only and is not intended to indicate an anticipated/planned award date.

4.1.2.1.1. The schedule must be prepared using the scheduling software detailed in the project specifications capable of identifying and outlining the Critical Path Schedule for each activity.

4.1.2.1.2. The schedule must be submitted in an Adobe PDF file. Schedules submitted without evidence of a software meeting the requirements in the project specifications will be considered noncompliant for this subfactor.

4.1.2.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the credibility, realism and completeness of the preliminary schedule. This includes the logic and realism of the proposed sequence of activities and task durations, with specific attention to the identified Critical Path.

Additionally, it will be assessed for compliance with the required period of performance and logical integration and consistency with the proposed Construction Execution Plan.

4.1.3. Subfactor 1.3: Third-Party and Community Coordination Plan

4.1.3.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit a detailed plan/narrative for proactively managing communications/interactions with entities outside the U.S. Government, including local Italian municipal authorities, Third-Party Agencies and contractors executing adjacent projects.

4.1.3.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the plan in minimizing impact on the local Italian community, liaising with authorities to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, managing communications with local Third-Party Agencies and proactively coordinating with adjacent contractors. An approach that demonstrates established relationships, specific expertise with Italian municipal regulatory processes may be evaluated more favorably.

4.1.4. Subfactor 1.4: Management Structure & Approach

4.1.4.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit a narrative clearly describing the firm's administrative and technical organization. This must include an organizational chart, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the proposed systems for communication, submittal processing, risk management, and quality control. There is no page limit on the organizational chart.

4.1.4.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the proposed management structure to determine if it provides a logical chain of command and clear lines of authority and communication for executing the project requirements. The effectiveness of the proposed risk management and quality control approach in proactively identifying, mitigating, and resolving performance, schedule, or quality issues. An approach that demonstrates a highly integrated structure and proactive risk-reduction measures that exceed baseline requirements may be evaluated more favorably.

4.2. Factor 2: Experience. This factor evaluates the demonstrated experience of Offerors and their key personnel on other projects with similar scope, complexity, and setting. This factor will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings in Table 1.

4.2.1. Subfactor 2.1: Corporate Experience

4.2.1.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit a portfolio consisting of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects that best demonstrate their experience on relevant projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to this RFP. For each submitted project, the offeror must provide a detailed narrative demonstrating its relevance.

Offerors shall utilize Attachment B, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet, to submit

Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, the applicable project information.

total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) pages. Information beyond this page limit will not be considered.

4.2.1.1.1. Primary Attributes (Baseline Relevancy): To be evaluated as recent and relevant (as ,defined in Section 4.3.2.1. and 4.3.2.2., respectively) a submitted project must meet all of the following minimum requirements for size, scope, and complexity:

(a) Size: A final construction cost of $6,000,000 or greater. If a project was awarded in a ~ currency other than US dollars, the offeror shall convert the non-US dollar currency into US dollars using the appropriate exchange rate (https://wise.com) as of the day the contract for the submitted project was awarded. This size relevancy requirement applies to the mandatory three (3) projects required to establish baseline relevancy. Offerors may submit up to two (2) additional projects (for a maximum of five (5) total) that are exempt from this size relevancy requirement. For these supplemental projects submitted to demonstrate experience under Section 4.2.1.1.2, the baseline scope requirement of paragraph (b) below ("storm/sewer systems AND a retention basin") also does not apply.

(b) Scope: Construction emphasizing storm/sewer systems AND a retention basin.

(c) Complexity/Location: The project must have been performed in Italy.

(d) Role: The Offeror must have performed the work as the Prime Contractor or as a formal member of an executed Joint Venture that was the prime contractor for the project.

(e) Recent: Must be completed or substantially completed (defined as at least 70% physical completion) no more than years prior to the close of this solicitation.five (5) eight (8)

4.2.1.1.2. Secondary Attributes (Specialized Scope): Offerors should identify if their submitted projects include any of the following specialized scopes: Construction addressing naturalistic hydraulic/landslide issues in wooded/sensitive areas, synthetic turf fields, and/or lamination tanks (or Italian equivalent "Appalto Pubblico"). If a project demonstrates "Secondary Attributes" performed by a subcontractor, the offeror must explicitly identify the subcontractor and provide a specialized experience narrative detailing the scope of the subcontractor's work, how the Offeror managed that subcontractor, and the successful outcome of those specialized tasks. This narrative must be included directly on the provided form (Attachment B) and must remain strictly within the maximum three (3) page limit per project as established in Section 4.2.1.1.

4.2.1.1.3. The Government will not consider any project submitted for this factor if it was performed by a firm other than the Offeror and there is no supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, letter of commitment, or explanation of meaningful involvement.

Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

4.2.1.1.4. Project Definition: A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single contract or a single task order. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted; rather, offerors shall submit the work performed under a specific task order as a project. The submission of an IDIQ or multiple award contract as a whole will be considered "Not Relevant." The projects may be for the U.S.

Government or other clients.

4.2.1.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror's submitted projects to determine the extent to which they demonstrate experience with the size, scope, and complexity of this requirement, evaluated against the specific recency and relevancy definitions established in Sections 4.3.2.1. and 4.3.2.2, respectively. This assessment will be used to determine the offeror's capability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

4.2.1.2.1. Primary Attributes (Baseline Requirements): The Government will evaluate projects against the Primary Attributes defined in Section 4.2.1.1.1. Any of the three (3) mandatory baseline projects failing to meet the baseline definitions will be deemed Not Relevant and will be all excluded from further evaluation (i.e., they will not be evaluated for Strengths or Significant

Strengths). If the exclusion of a "Not Relevant" project results in the Offeror having fewer than the mandatory minimum of three (3) relevant projects in their portfolio (as required by Section 4.2.1.1), the proposal will be assessed a Deficiency under this subfactor for failure to meet a material requirement of the RFP. This will result in an overall subfactor rating of Unacceptable, rendering the proposal unawardable. Any optional fourth or fifth supplemental project will be evaluated as Relevant only if it is submitted specifically to demonstrate one of the Secondary Attributes and meets the other Primary Attributes of Role, Location, and Recency.

4.2.1.2.2. Secondary Attributes: For any project deemed Relevant under the criteria in paragraph

4.2.1.2.1 above , the Government will conduct a projects that meet the baseline requirements qualitative assessment of the experience demonstrated. A proposal may be assessed a Strength if a submitted project demonstrates experience with one or more of the Secondary Attributes. A proposal may be assessed a Significant Strength if a submitted project demonstrates successful experience with the construction of a lamination tank or equivalent large-scale, underground water retention/treatment structure, as this is considered a highly favorable and discriminating aspect of experience for this requirement.

4.2.1.2.3. Cost Growth: For any project where the final cost exceeded the initial award by more than 25%, the Government will review the narrative provided in the Experience Project Data Sheet, Attachment B, Block 7. This review will determine whether the cost variance was driven by managed complexities and that the Offeror otherwise demonstrated stable cost control and project management.

4.2.2. Subfactor 2.2: Key Personnel Experience

4.2.2.1. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall submit resumes, including all applicable training certificates, for the required primary key personnel: Site Superintendent (SS), Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO), or their Italian equivalents, respectively ("Direttore Tecnico di Cantiere", "Responsabile del Controllo Qualita", and "RSPP/Preposto").

Submitted resumes and certificates must clearly detail the individual's work history and demonstrate that the proposed individuals meet or exceed all minimum qualifications, education, and experience requirements set forth in the project specifications. Resumes and certifications submitted for alternate key personnel will not be evaluated. Note: Resumes and training certificates are excluded from, and do not count towards, the overall proposal page count limitations.

4.2.2.2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the submitted resumes and training certificates to determine the extent and relevance of the proposed key personnel's experience and to verify compliance with the project specifications.