Amendment_0001_W912GB-14-R-0030_FY15_Israel_MATOC_30Sep14.pdf

W2SDXXXXXXXXXX

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

See Continuation Page

POC: Glenn Adams, Contract Specialist Email: glenn.adams@usace.army.mil Phone: +49 (0)611 9744 2723

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 38

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Sep-2014

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 W912GB-14-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Sep-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

30-Sep-2014

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB-14-R-0030

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:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of the is Amendment is to: 1) Extend the proposal submission date for Phase I – Technical Factors 1, 2 and 3; 2) Provide information for the two (2) Industry Days for the Israel Program; Provide information for the FY15 Israel MATOC Pre-Proposal Conference 3) Identify the Seed Project for Request the FY15 Israel MATOC solicitation; 4) Provide responses to interest party’s request for information, clarifications and, questions; 5) update proposal submission and evaluation criteria, and 6) update several Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) clauses.

1. Submission of the Phase I – Technical proposals is extended to no later than 26 November 2014 at 02:00

PM Central European Time (CET). Method of delivery remains unchanged. The submission date and time for Phase II proposals is to be determined.

2. USACE Europe District Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) Special Notice # W912GB-14-X-0100 was posted on 26 September 2014 which provides information for interested parties to participate in USACE and Israel Ministry of Defense sponsored Industry Days for the Israel Program in New York City, New York and Tel Aviv, Israel. Registration requirements for the Industry Days are found in the FBO posting.

3. The FY15 Israel MATOC solicitation Pre-Proposal Conference will be held in conjunction with the Industry Day in Israel. The Conference is at the Dan Tel Aviv Hotel, located at 99 Ha Yarkon Street, Tel Aviv, Israel on 5 November 2014 starting at 0830. Point of Contact for the Pre-Proposal Conference is Glenn Adams, Contract Specialist who can be reached at email glenn.adams@usace.army.mil or telephone +49 (0)611 9744 2723.

Interested parties wishing to attend must contact Mr. Adams no later than 30 October 2014 providing the company name; name of individual with email address and telephone number(s). Prime Contractors or Joint Ventures representative are to submit one request consolidating all individuals to include any of your Key subcontractor personnel who plan to attend.

4. RFP IS-15-0001 “Site 276 Dining Facility (DFAC) and Energy Center – Israel” will be the “Seed Project” for the FY15 Israel MATOC solicitation with the RFP package to be included in a future amendment. The estimate of the Magnitude of Construction IAW DFAR 236.204”Disclosure of the magnitude of construction projects” is between $10,000,000.00 and $25,000,000.00. The Price proposal submission for the Seed Project will not be evaluated as part of the submission and evaluation for the FY15 Israel MATOC solicitation. All offerors selected to participate in Phase II of the FY15 Israel MATOC solicitation process will be given the opportunity to submit a firm-fixed price proposal for the Seed Project currently projected for submission at the same time of the Phase II proposal response to the Solicitation. The Seed Project price proposals will be sealed and not opened until after the FY15 Israel MATOC contracts have been awarded. Award of the Seed Project - Site 276 task order will be to the offeror: 1) who has received an FY15 Israel MATOC contract and; 2) who has submitted a price proposal in response to the Seed Project RFP and; 3) whose price conforms to the requirements of the RFP and base contract and, 4) who is the lowest offeror meeting the Responsibility Determination for Award requirements of FAR Part 9 – Contractor Qualification, Subparts 9.104-1 – General Standards and 9.104-3 – Application of Standards. The pre-proposal site visit for the Seed Project is scheduled to take place the week of the Pre-Proposal Conference for the FY15 Israel MATOC.

5. The following are responses to interest party’s submitted request for information, clarifications or questions:

mailto:glenn.adams@usace.army.mil

Question - 1: SF1442 Block 10 indicates Phase I proposal due 31 Oct 2014 however SF1442 Block 13 indicates proposal due 26 Sep 2014. Can USACE please clarify?

Response: The Phase I and Phase II proposal due dates are as stated above in Block 14 of this Amendment.

Question - 2: Reference Proposal Submission Requirements (Page 18 of 163); Subsection b.: “Proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted in two volumes” Based upon the instruction we believe that this should read three (3) volumes (One in Phase 1 and two in Phase 2). Can USACE please confirm?

Response: Proposals are to be submitted in two (2) separate Phases and three (3) separate binders:

• Phase I Volume - I containing Technical Factors – 1, 2 and 3 – (Volume I - Binder 1

• Phase II submission which includes Technical Factor-4 Design Capability Plan (Volume I – Binder

2) and Factor – 5 Price (Volume II - Binder 3).

Question - 3: Reference Basic Proposal Submission Requirements C. Evaluation Approach Factor 1- Experience; Subsection 1. (RFP Page 9 of 163 bottom of page): “Of the seven (7) projects submitted, at least two projects should be for the prime contractor of which one of the projects submitted by the prime must be in the United States.” This conflicts with instruction provided on the following page: Basic Proposal Submission Requirements C. Evaluation Approach Factor 1- Experience; Subsection 1 Bullet #8 (RFP Page 10 of 163):

“Two (2) projects demonstrating the Prime Contractor’s experience working in the United States”. Could USACE please clarify which instruction is correct?

Response: The submission requirements have been revised in the Solicitation with Amendment 0001.

Question - 4: Reference Section 013000 Summary of Work and Contract Administration (RFP Page 132 of

163) Minor issue ...There are two subsections numbered 1.2 Response: Corrected with this Amendment.

Question - 5: Reference Factor 1- Experience (RFP Page 10 of 163) requests project experience ranging from $1M to $15M. The Phase II - Volume II – Price Proposal TO value table (RFP Page 27 of 163) refers to Task Order maximum values of $15M. SECTION 013000 Subsection 1.2 (RFP Page 27 of 163) references the Maximum Task Order is anticipated to be US $15,000,000. However, Section 00100 Subsection D – Factor 3 – Management Approach (RFP Page 23 of 163) is based on a maximum TO value of only $10M. Could USACE Please clarify if this $10M value is intentional?

Response: Section 00100 Subsection D – Factor 3 Management Approach has been corrected to $15M.

Question - 6: Reference Section 00100 Subsection D – FACTOR 3 – Management Approach (RFP Page 22 of

163) Subsection a. requests identification by name, together with a resume for a single key position designated “The Project Manager”. Subsection d. then requests a description of a management approach to accommodate multiple simultaneous TOs at different locations with a Project Manager and other Key Personnel. Can USACE please clarify if the position being requested for the organization chart is actually synonymous the contractor’s IDIQ “Program Manager” that is typically used on MATOCs such as this (and who would coordinate multiple Project Managers potentially assigned to dispersed TOs), or is USACE requesting a resume for a single typical Project Manager who would manage a typical TO?

Response: Submission of resumes are required for one (1) Program Manager, responsible for the Prime Contractor’s management of multiple simultaneous task orders at different locations and one (1) Project Manager, responsible for the Prime Contractor’s management of a single task order for a single location or multiple locations included in the single task order. The submission requirements along with the experience and qualifications for these positions are included in Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation.

Question - 7: Reference Proposal Submission Requirements Factor 3 – Management Approach; Item e. (RFP Page 23 of 163): Could USACE please clarify the following with respect to the potential requirement for a Facility Clearance for this MATOC?

a) At what clearance level (e.g. Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) does USACE anticipate that an FCL would be required under this MATOC?

Response: Secret

b) Will the facility clearance be issued/subject to U.S. DoD Defense Security Service requirements and protocols only, or are there additional Host Nation requirements? Please provide details for any additional requirements.

Response: The Prime shall have the ability to obtain and maintain a cleared facility located within the US for the purpose of this solicitation. The Facility Clearance for facilities within the US will be subject to US requirements. Future Task Orders may have additional requirements, but these are not being evaluated at this time.

c) At what location would classified material be issued by USACE and subsequently require handling and storage (e.g. Germany, Israel, etc.)?

Response: The location and handling requirements for classified material will be identified in future task orders as necessary. Classified material is typically issued during the site visit.

Question - 8: Reference Proposal Submission Requirements Factor 3 - Management Approach; Item a. (RFP Page 22 of 163): This instruction requests a single, comprehensive organization chart containing a variety of information. Is the use of an 11”x17” format for graphics permitted in the proposal, and if so can we assume that it counts for one page of the 40-page recommend length for this section?

Response: The use of one 11”x17” page for the Organizational Chart is acceptable and does not count for the 40-page length of the section.

Question - 9: Has consideration been given for the Phase 1 submittal to include Factor 4 as well, since Design Capability Plan selection criteria of the Designer of Record (DOR) is a significant aspect of the Contractors Management Approach for the project?

Response: Offerors are not limited to addressing the Prime Contractor’s management approach to Design-Build and their Designer of Record in their submission for Factor 4 – Design Capability Plan.

Technical Factors 1- Experience, 2 - Past Performance and 3 - Management Approach will be evaluated in Phase I – Technical and the evaluation results of these factors will be carried over to Phase II – Technical and be included with the results of the evaluation of Technical Factor 4 – Design Capability.

Question - 10: Ref. Basic Proposal Submission Requirements: pages 9 & 10 of 163, Item C.2. At the bottom of page 9, the RFP says that one of the Prime Contractor’s projects must be in the United States. On page 10, bullet 8 indicates that two projects should demonstrate the Prime Contractor’s experience working in the United States. Please clarify.

Response: See response to Question 3.

Question- 11: Ref. Committed Subcontractors: page 19 of 163. Is a Letter of Commitment for the design firm required to be submitted with the Phase I proposal?

Response: All Letters of Commitment are to be submitted in Phase I.

Question - 12: Ref. Factor 4 – Design Capability Plans: page 23 of 163. What are the certification requirements for selecting a Design Firm?

Response: Refer to USACE Specifications 01 00 15 “Design After Award” and 01 451 “Contractor Quality Control (Design-Build)” provided with the Solicitation. Design documents have to be certified in accordance with Israeli standards.

Question - 13: Ref: Attachments 5, 6 & 7. Attachments 5 (OPS Worksheet), 6 (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities) and 7 (Prime Contractor Key Personnel & Performance Requirements) are provided with the RFP, but there are no instructions for their return with the proposal. Are these attachments to be completed and returned with the proposal?

Response: Attachments 5 and 7 were provided with the solicitation as information only and are documents required when submitting a response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) under the FY 15 Israel MATOC for a project to be awarded as a Task Order. The FY15 MATOC Seed Project RFP will include these documents as attachments and are to be submitted with the Seed Project Price proposal with the Phase II proposal submission. Attachment 6 “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” is required to be submitted with the Representation and Certification submission with the Phase II price proposal submission.

Question - 14: Ref: Factor 3 – Management Approach: page 14 of 163. Item 2 on page 14 references specification section 013000; however, this section is not provided with the RFP. Please clarify.

Response: Section 013000 “Summary of Work and Contract Administration” is included in the Solicitation pages 132 through 163.

6. Remove Attachment 1 – Experience Overview Sheet provided with the solicitation and replace with the revised

Experience Overview Sheet, dated 27 September 2014 and provided as Attachment – 1 to this Amendment.

7. All other requirements of the Solicitation as amended remain unchanged.

Attachment:

1. Revised Experience Overview Sheet, dated 27 September 2014.

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time 26-Sep-2014 02:00 PM has been deleted.

The following have been modified:

BASIC PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

BASIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00100) – Amendment 0001

When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout Section 00100, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered throughout this Section 00100, it is intended to mean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Best Value source selection procedures will be used with the intent to award to the responsible Offerors whose proposals, conforming to the request for proposal (RFP), are determined to be technically acceptable and offers the best value to the Government using the trade-off method.

The award will be made based on the best overall proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, Design Capability Plan, and Price. Experience is slightly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is slightly more important than Management Approach. Management Approach is slightly more important than Design Capability Plan, and when combined the four technical factors are significantly more important than price.

Technical Factors 1- Experience, 2 - Past Performance and 3 - Management Approach will be evaluated in Phase I – Technical and the evaluation results of these factors will be carried over to Phase II – Technical and be included with the results of the evaluation of Technical Factor 4 – Design Capability.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each of the non-priced factors.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT

THAN PRICE AS AN INDIVIDUAL FACTOR. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price; however, the degree of importance of price related elements as a factor will become greater as the technical proposals approach equality. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government.

The awarded Contract will incorporate the successful Offeror’s proposal to the extent it offers betterments and does not conflict with the Request for Proposal.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the solicitation requirements. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 1: Experience: Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine depth and relevance of their experience.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Management Approach: The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated for the reasonableness, risk, and the logic which illustrates a basic understanding of managing of contract of this nature.

Factor 4: Design Capability: The Offeror shall submit their plan for obtaining Designer(s) of Record appropriate for the anticipated work that may be ordered under this contract. At a minimum the plan shall include the following:

1. Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record

2. Certification requirement(s)

Factor 5: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST) to include any and all information submitted by the Offeror, regardless of whether it was specifically asked for herein.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. FACTOR 1- EXPERIENCE

1. The Proposal shall contain no more than seven (7) projects performed within six (6) years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) that show experience constructing facilities of a similar dollar value, physical size, complexity and function, utilizing techniques relevant to those required by this solicitation. Of the seven (7) projects submitted at least three (3) shall be for the Prime Contractor of which two (2) of the project submitted must be construction projects in the United States completed as the Prime Contractor.

In the case of a joint venture, at least one project for each joint venture partner must be submitted. The Offeror will be evaluated on the depth and relevance of their experience as submitted in the proposal in accordance with the following items which are approximately equal to each other in importance:

• Projects which involve construction of base facilities.

• Projects which involve renovations of base facilities.

• Projects which involve airfield runway works (new/replacement paving)

• Projects built in an active environment and phased construction.

• Projects which involve design-build.

• Projects with a cost between $1,000,000 and $15,000,000.

• Projects that demonstrate experience working OCONUS with projects in Israel being more relevant.

• Two (2) of the projects submitted are construction projects in the United States completed as the

Prime Contractor

• Projects that are completed (as opposed to in-progress or on-going) within the last six (6) years. Projects older than six (6) years will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant

2. For the purposes of this solicitation, a `project' is defined as a discrete, severable scope of work or set of activities with a measurable performance period and monetary value. There may be several projects within a single contract.

An example is: a single contract that includes projects with distinct sets of facilities at different locations and each project is identified as a separate contract line item.

3. Projects demonstrating that the Offeror’s team members have previously worked together are considered more relevant, especially where the roles were similar to those that are proposed for this work. Projects that are closer to the completion date (either recently completed or nearing completion) are considered more relevant than those that are further from the completion date. Projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to a slightly lesser extent other U.S. Government agencies, are considered more relevant.

4. Demonstrated experience in the categories listed above for multiple projects versus demonstrated experience in the categories listed above on one project will be considered more relevant.

5. For Projects that are not considered fully relevant, the government will evaluate which projects demonstrate various aspects of relevancy. Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant aspects as possible. Offerors are cautioned that if they submit no recent experience, this may negatively affect the evaluation of the depth of experience.

6. If more than seven (7) projects are submitted, only the first seven will be evaluated. If less than seven (7) projects are submitted, the proposal will be evaluated; however, the proposal might not receive the highest rating available. If less than three(3) projects for the prime are submitted, the proposal will be evaluated; however, the proposal might not receive the highest rating available. An Offeror will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of an individual or for key personnel experience proposed for this project. An Offeror should not submit basic indefinite quantity contracts and multiple award construction contracts as projects, however, individual task orders under those contracts may be submitted as projects.

The adjectival ratings from FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE are listed and defined below:

3. FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The second aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance will be evaluated for projects performed within six (6) years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete). If an Offeror submits a project for experience that is more than six (6) years old, it may be considered for past performance but may less relevant than past performance in the past six years.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted, as well as any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government through other available sources. An Offeror may not establish past performance based on individual or key personnel performance, apart from the Offeror’s entity that is proposing. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

a. Quality: The degree to which the Offeror has complied with the contract requirements ; met quality standards;

was timely in regard to problem resolution without extensive customer guidance; and the shown effectiveness of his prior quality control program.

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance: Whether the Offeror met contract completion dates including significant milestones and where schedules were exceeded, whether the Offeror identified valid justifications for the delays or if liquidated damages were assessed due to late delivery by the Offeror.

c. Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which end-users were satisfied with the project; whether the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in regard to resolving disagreements; whether the Offeror was responsive and businesslike with concern for the customer, and whether the Offeror achieved customer satisfaction.

d. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce; controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed multiple projects simultaneously and multiple disciplines of construction; easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

e. Cost/Financial Management: Whether the Offeror met the contract requirements by completing the project at the agreed to price and where not, the extent to which the Offeror was responsible for cost increases; whether the Offeror provided alternative methods that benefited the client; whether the Offeror submitted invoices timely with sufficient documentation to substantiate requested payment and avoided significant unexplained variances from the original price..

f. Safety/Security: The Offeror’s prior record for maintaining an environment of safety, adherence to a safety plan, and compliance with safety requirements, including following safety regulations, housekeeping, and correcting noted deficiencies, as well as the Offeror’s prior compliance with all security requirements and personnel security requirements when applicable.

g. General: The ability to respond to emergency situations; ability to effectively communicate; compliance with contract terms and conditions. This includes if prior customers would prefer to do business with the Offeror again, if given the choice.

1. Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available and has the right to contact customers other than those listed by the Offeror to evaluate past performance.

2. The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

3. The Government will consider past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror. When evaluating these criteria, the following will be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes:

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. How recently the project submitted was performed;

c. Trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. Evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers; and

e. Positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance.

4. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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.

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

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.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

iii. Offerors (a) for whom compliance with FAR 52.219-8 has been established; and/or (b) for whom no negative information has been reported; or (c) certifying no past performance history of contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 will be rated as “complying with FAR 52.219-8.” Such a rating shall have neither positive nor negative impact on the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation. Offerors for whom negative information has been reported shall have such negative information, along with any explanations or comments responding to such negative information supplied by the Offeror, evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria for Past Performance. Such evaluation shall be substantiated and factored into the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation.

4. FACTOR 3 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated for the reasonableness, risk, and the logic which illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. The Offeror’s approach is to be consistent, logical, clearly articulated and well organized and is to contain the following:

1. Clearly delineated lines of authority on the organizational chart (graph) organized in a precise and logical manner including the relationship between the headquarters’ office and the site office, including all involved with the management of the contract including subcontractors and joint venture partners.

2. The graph and the narrative description clearly display the planned organization structure to include clearly identifying prime contractor versus subcontractor positions and where those position our located, identifying the Project Manager by name, and identifying the logical distribution of key personnel. The Project Manager meets the minimum qualifications as required in the Summary of Work (see Section 013000, paragraph 1.10.1).

3. Comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and joint ventures presented as a logical approach to perform the work throughout the contract, including which roles and personnel are identified to communicate with the Government.

Note: The positions of program manager, project manager, site superintendant, CQC system manager and safety and health officer must be filled by full time employees of the prime contractor, directly hired by the prime contractor. They cannot be employees or officials of a subcontractor and cannot also serve or be “dual hatted” as subcontractor employees or officials. The prime contractor may have additional positions filled by its employees but the five positions listed herein are the minimum acceptable.

4. A precise explanation illustrating an understanding of the contract requirements by describing management for performance of a task order including start-up / mobilization and additional and/or unique management advantages provided to the Government.

5. A reasonable approach to distribution of key personnel required to manage an annual workload of $45,000,000 for multiple task orders awarded simultaneously at different locations between $1,000,000 to $15,000,000.

6. The ability to obtain and maintain a Facility Clearance and to manage a project requiring such clearance in Israel.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH are listed and defined below:

5. FACTOR 4 - DESIGN CAPABILITY PLAN

Design Capability, the Offeror shall submit their plan for obtaining Designer(s) of Record appropriate for the anticipated work that may be ordered under this contract . At a minimum the plan shall include the following:

1. Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record

2. Certification requirement(s)

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 4: DESIGN CAPABILITY PLAN are listed and defined below.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and

6. FACTOR 5 - PRICE

1. Price will not be scored, but will be evaluated in accordance with this section. In order to be considered acceptable, offers must contain prices for all of the contract line items (CLINs) for the base items and any options.

Failure to submit a Price Schedule and failure to complete all CLINs may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration. The Offeror's price proposal will be evaluated to determine reasonableness, completeness, and affordability in order to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work for the project (the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s ability to perform the work at the proposed price), i.e. whether the price is reasonable for the work to be performed, whether the price reflects the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements, and whether the price is consistent with the technical proposal. Price will be evaluated based on the total sum of the base price CLIN and all option CLINs.

a. Completeness – To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary to evaluate the prices, including completing all CLINs on the Price Schedule. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

b. Reasonableness – The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Part 15. For Price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), and the technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror.

The Offeror’s price shall include and incorporate all costs associated with currency fluctuation and inflation. The Offeror’s price shall include and incorporate all costs associated with performance of the project, including labor, materials, securing and storage of materials, and equipment.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject any and all offers.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and

2. Price Evaluations Price is evaluated as the Total Bottom Line Sum, which includes the base year and the four (4) option periods.

Price and Line Items are also individually reviewed to ensure reasonableness and balance. Price will be evaluated independently from the technical submission and in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (Jul 1990)

3. Line Item Weight The Line Item Weight is used as part of the evaluation of Price Proposals. The Line Item Weight is the product of the Coefficient multiplied by the Weight Factor.

Formula:

Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line item Weight Numerical Example:

(1.45 x 3) = 4.35 Line Item Weight (This is only an Example and is not intended for a suggested bidding coefficient)

4. Determination of Bottom Line Sum The Bottom Line Sum is used for evaluation of Price. The Bottom Line Sum is the sum of all Line Item Weights located in Column six. The Total Bottom Line Sum includes the base year and the four (4) option periods.

5. Complete Price Proposals In order to be considered acceptable, proposals must be complete for all line items on Section 00101 Price Schedule.

Failure to complete all information on Section 00101 Price Schedule may result in the Offeror's proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

If, during the course of the price analysis, the Contracting Officer has reason to question the reasonableness of a Price proposal, or has reason to believe there is unbalancing in the Price proposal, the Contracting Officer may conduct such additional analysis as it requires in order to complete a through price analysis. Because the evaluation of the Price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror might not be selected because of an unbalanced or an unreasonable Price proposal.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

1. This contract is firm-fixed-price, payable entirely in United States of America Dollars. No additional sums will be payable due to any escalation in the cost of materials, equipment or labor. The Contractor’s failure to properly estimate or accurately predict the cost and/or difficulty in achieving the results required by this contract is not reimbursable. The contract price will not be adjusted on account of fluctuations in the currency exchange rates. No Bill of Quantities will be provided by the Government or will be utilized during this Contract. Changes in the contract price and/or time to complete will be made only due to changes made by the Government in the work to be performed/due to delays caused by the Government as determined and approved in accordance with FAR clauses 52.243-4 Changes, and FAR 52.211-13 Time Extensions, and as approved by the Contracting Officer. Advance payments are not authorized and the contractor will be paid only for work as the work is accomplished in defined intervals as the work proceeds, in accordance with FAR clause 52.232-5 Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts.

2. Responsibility: In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, the Contracting Officer will perform an affirmative responsibility determination to ensure that the Offeror has the adequate resources to perform the work.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section 00100)

The source selection process will use a two-step phase selection approach as authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2305a. The first phase of the selection process will determine if the contractor meets the minimum qualifications outlined in the solicitation. If a contractor’s proposal is considered among the highly qualified in Phase I, they will be required to submit additional information for Phase II for evaluation.

1. Introduction. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. Phase 1, Volume 1: Technical Proposal (Factors 1, 2, and 3) and Phase 2, Volume 1: Technical

Factor 4 and Phase 2, Volume II: Price Proposal / Administrative Submission shall be received at the following address by the date and time indicated on the Solicitation Standard Form 1442. No. facsimiles are permitted:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Europe District Contracting Division (CENAU-CT) Attn: Glenn Adams, Contract Specialist 7th Floor, Room 709A Konrad-Adenauer Ring 39 D-65187 Wiesbaden Germany

Email: glenn.adams@usace.army.mil Telephone Confirmation: +49(0)611-9744-2723

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The proposal shall meet the following basic requirements.

a. The Proposal shall be typed and submitted in English and easy to read.

b. Proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted in two volumes. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. Each volume shall be contained within a separate binder.

d. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

e. Each volume shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

f. Volume I: Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct and complete including names of the points-of-contact, email address, and telephone number.

g. Volume II: The Price Schedule shall be completed in full, including all options, if any.

h. Volume II: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer Standard Form 1442 for this solicitation including verification of all amendments received.

i. Initial proposals should be submitted based on the most favorable terms the Offeror can submit to the Government from a technical and price position. You are referred to the section entitled: Basis for Award

j. Offerors shall submit a CD copy of each Volume, including the Electronic Price Schedule.

k. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

l. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals. All questions and concerns shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer prior to the closing date of the solicitation, providing adequate time for the Contracting Officer to answer the concerns.

m. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly, may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer if instructions are not understood.

Note: Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs: The Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

n. Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

PROPOSAL PACKAGE ORIGINAL COPIES CD

PHASE I

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 1 4 1

FACTOR 1 – Experience FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – Management Approach

This volume shall also include the following:

Letters of Commitments for Committed Subcontractors Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

PHASE 2

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 1 4 1

FACTOR 4 – Design Capability

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL

1 4 1

FACTOR 5 – Price

This volume shall include the information as detailed in paragraph “PROPOSAL

FORMAT FOR VOLUME II.”

Committed Subcontractors.

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of a committed subcontractor (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor) a letter of commitment signed by the committed subcontractor and the prime contractor shall be submitted. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to the prime contractor (for example, the committed subcontractor is subsidiary of the prime contractor, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the prime contractor is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. The Offeror shall include their letter of commitment as part of Volume I.

Joint Ventures.

The Contracts will be awarded only to U.S. Firms and paid only in U.S. ($) dollars pursuant to 22 U.S.C. §2791(c).

If a single Offeror does not have in-house design and construction capabilities, the Offeror shall either have a joint venture agreement with a…