Amendment_0002_W912GB-14-R-0038_Site_9485-Israel.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This Amendment includes the follow ing:

-Phase I proposal due date is extended until 05-December 2014 at 15:00 Central European Time (CET) -Modified language in Section 00100- Instructions to Offerors Proposal Submission Requirements, A. Basis for Aw ard and Project Manager Experience have been revised -Attachment #01-Responses to RFI’s -Attachments #02, #03, #04 Photo images of Existing Electric Bldg.

-Attachment #05-Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing slides -Attachment #06-Site Visit Sign-In Sheet

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Nov-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-0038

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Nov-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-0038

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 24-Nov-2014 03:00 PM to 05-Dec-2014 03:00 PM.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

BASIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00100)

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.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Plan, Design Capability Plan, Schedule and Price. For Phase 1, Experience is slightly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is slightly more important than Management Plan.

For Phase 2, Design Capability Plan is slightly more important than Schedule. 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, TECHNICAL FACTORS WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN

PRICE. 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 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.

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.

PHASE I

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 Plan: The Offeror’s management plan will be evaluated for the reasonableness, risk, and the logic associated with the overall organization structure and how it is organized, structured, and staffed to execute the entire scope of work.

The SSA will use the consensus ratings from the evaluation of the Phase I proposal submittals. Offerors evaluated as most qualified will be notified by the Contracting Officer to submit the Phase II Proposal Requirements.

PHASE II

Factor 4: Design Capability Plan: The Offeror’s capability plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and logic and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute design of this project.

Factor 5: Schedule: The Offeror’s schedule will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the solicitation requirements.

Factor 6: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Contract. 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.

PHASE I

1. 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) projects should be for the Prime Contractor of which two (2) projects submitted shall be construction projects in the United States completed as the Prime Contractor. 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 design and construction of similar off-grid solar photovoltaic systems involving installation, configuration and commissioning.

• Projects similar in magnitude ($10,000,000 to $25,000,000), complexity and of a similar duration as the work required under this solicitation.

• Projects which demonstrate design-build experience.

• 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).

• Projects performed within the last six (6) years. Projects older than six (6) years will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant

2. 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.

3. Offerors demonstrating multiple projects with experience in the categories listed above will be considered more relevant than Offerors submitting one example.

4. 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.

5. 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 two (2) 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:

2. 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).

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:

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.

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.

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:

(iii)

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.

3. FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Offeror’s management plan 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 shall contain the following:

1. Clearly delineated lines of authority on the organizational chart (graph) in a precise and logical manner including the relationship between the headquarters’ office site office, and USACE, including all involved with the management of the contract, for example, design team, 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.

3. Comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for design team, 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 project manager, site superintendent, 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 the subcontractor and cannot also serve or be “dual-hatted” as subcontractor employees or officials. Simply re-designating subcontractor employees as prime contractor employees for purposes of this project will not be acceptable and will not be considered to show adequate management of subcontractors by the prime.

Prime contractor employees in key positions must be genuinely independent of the subcontractors whose activities they manage. The prime contractor may have additional positions filled by its employees but the four positions listed herein are the minimum acceptable.

4. A precise explanation illustrating an understanding of the contract requirements by describing management for performance of the contract including start-up / mobilization, summary of quality control plan, staffing of the field offices, summary to supply labor, summary to acquire materials, plan to obtain, retain, coordinate and manage subcontractors, summary for compliance with security requirements and additional and/or unique management advantages provided to the Government. Additionally, the management plan will address the unique aspects of this project including limited site access, delivery of materials into basement work area. In evaluating proposed key personnel the government may consider any relevant information known to it concerning the proposed personnel, including performance on previous government contracts.

The plan must be specifically-tailored to the project contemplated by the solicitation.

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

PHASE II

1. FACTOR 4: DESIGN CAPABILITY PLAN

The Offeror’s design capability plan will be evaluated for the following:

1. Specialized Experience & Technical Competence: This criterion addresses the firm’s and any partners, subcontractors, or consultants’ specialized experience and technical knowledge within the last 5 years in the type of work described in statement of work. The experience can be shown by the sole, or collective experience of the A-E and, where applicable, A-E partners, joint venture partners’ experience. If the experience of key subcontractors is offered for any experience requirements, then a letter of commitment between the A-E firm or joint venture partnership and the subcontractor is required.

2. Professional Qualifications: The A-E firm must identify the qualifications of personnel in the following key disciplines: Project Manager, Architect, Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, and Cost Engineer. The evaluation will consider the education, training, certification, overall and relevant experience and longevity with the proposed team for all proposed key personnel.

3. Knowledge of Locality: Knowledge of engineering and design in Israel with the ability to certify designs under Israeli law, otherwise known as Designer of Record (DOR).

The Offeror’s shall include any letter of commitments for any individual or firm included on the design team in accordance with the requirements in this solicitation.

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and

Government will also consider the risk associated with the Offeror’s plan and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute the project.

2. FACTOR 5: SCHEDULE

The Offeror’s schedule will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the solicitation requirements. In assessing reasonableness, the Government will take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the contract duration as compared with the solicitation requirements. In addition, the Government may use independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The length of the schedule must be equal to the contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scope, and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., long lead items, logicalness of proposed phasing, etc.). The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

The schedule must be specifically-tailored to the project contemplated by the solicitation.

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and

3. FACTOR 6: PRICE

The contract will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. 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 Bid 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, performance risk 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 all CLINs. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unreasonably low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

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 Bid 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 proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if any are reasonable in relation to the anticipated work under the contract as well as with current industry standards. The Offeror’s price

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and 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. 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 for award because of unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete, inaccurate, noncurrent price proposal information and/or project pricing data.

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

FFP Requirements

1) The RFP requires firm-fixed-prices contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data, shall be utilized.

2) Offers found to be unreasonably high, unreasonably low (an indication of “buy –in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

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)

1. Introduction. The Offeror’s Phase I technical proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. Phase 1: Technical Proposal shall be received at the following address by the date and time indicated on the Solicitation Standard Form 1442. No. facsimiles of Phase I are permitted:

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

Email: oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil Telephone Confirmation: +49(0)611-9744-2626

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 Bid 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 Bid 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 1 6 1

FACTOR 1 – Experience FACTOR 2 – Past Performance FACTOR 3 – Management Plan

Phase I shall also include the following:

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

PHASE II

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 1 6 1

FACTOR 4 – Design Capability Plan FACTOR 5 – Schedule

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL 1 1

FACTOR 6 – 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.

Joint Venture partners shall be jointly and severably liable for the performance of the contract.

The submitted joint venture agreement shall constitute the entirety of the agreement between Joint Venture partners concerning this contract. Any unsubmitted further or side agreements shall have no validity with respect to performance of the contract, nor shall they serve as a defense by a joint venture member to performance of the contract requirements.

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding joint venture agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any Offerors that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and management approach of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

a. A copy of their joint venture agreement in English.

b. A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

1) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing. The joint venture agreement must show that joint venture members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

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

3) The structure of the joint venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

4) The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

5) Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

6) Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

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

8) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the joint venture.

If one of the joint venture parties possesses relevant experience and/or past performance, the experience and/or past performance of that firm will be considered as the experience and/or past performance of the joint venture.

A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included.

*** All members of the Joint Venture shall sign the SF 1442 and be named on the Bid Bond. Make sure to include as part of Volume I.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be included.

b. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

PHASE I. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

For Factor 1 – Experience, Offerors shall submit two attachments, Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, detailing previous work experience (projects) meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

1. Information for completing Attachment 1 and Attachment 2:

a. Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment 1, with a total listing not-to-exceed (NTE) seven (7) projects, performed within six (6) years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete), that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation. If more than seven (7) projects are submitted, only the first seven (7) projects will be evaluated. If less than seven (7) projects are submitted the proposal may not receive the highest rating possible. Offerors should not submit an overarching IDIQ constract as experience since the IDIQ itself does not demonstrate any work. Offerors may submit a specific task order from the IDIQ contact since the task order itself is issued for a specific project. Offerors are reminded that if the Offeror submits IDIQ task orders for experience, each task order will count as one project.

b. Offerors shall provide an Experience Information Sheet, Attachment 2, Page 1, for each project listed on Attachment 1 Experience Overview Sheet.

2. The Experience Information Sheets must be filled out completely. The information provided on the Experience Information Sheets will be used to evaluate the relevancy of each Offeror’s experience. When we evaluate your experience, we may contact your references in order to confirm the project information on the Experience Information Sheets. Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy and should clearly articulate what the offeror did on the project. The project description must include the type of design/construction used (e.g. CMU block, pre-engineered steel, concrete panel, etc.). You are encouraged to provide additional descriptive, narrative information and pictures on projects (not only project lists or titles) in addition to the Experience Information Sheet, but any additional information must pertain specifically to these seven (7) projects. An English speaking point of contact must be provided for each project submitted. Please include name, email, phone number and fax number for each POC.

3. If a committed subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the prime contractor’s experience with those subcontractors. If a joint venture, clearly address the experience of each of the joint venture partners, and the relationship of the JV partners with each other for the project. If submitting experience as a previous subcontractor, explain how this experience enhanced your knowledge for work as a prime contractor.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3, included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for projects included in the proposal for Factor 1 Experience. The completed Attachment 3 shall be included in the proposal under Factor 2 Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance

Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ Attachment 3, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Oksana Strekha, via email at oksana.strekha@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide a completed Department of Defense, DD 2626 form, Final Construction Performance Evaluation, in lieu of Attachment 3. DD 2626 shall be signed by all designated authorities for consideration for evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

FACTOR 3 - MANAGEMENT PLAN

For Factor 3 – Management Plan, The Offeror shall provide a management plan for successful execution of this project. Organization Structure and Staffing and Execution are not subfactors and will be evaluated as one complete factor. The plan should describe and include the following at a minimum:

1. Organization Structure and Staffing. The Offeror shall clearly describe its organization structure for this particular project, including lines of authority and the relationship between its home office site office (office which is directly responsible for execution of this project) and USACE, and how they are related. An organization chart including, titles, and explanations of the major responsibilities and authorities for key personnel in the home office, support office and site offices shall be provided. The proposal shall clearly explain the proposed project staffing and how the work effort can be effectively managed. The chart should clearly identify where positions/personnel are located and whether filled by the Prime Contractor or their subcontractor’s personnel.

The roles of any Joint Venture partners and/or major Subcontractors must be clearly stated in this section. If subcontractors will be used for a significant portion of the work, a Letter of Commitment will be required and included in Volume 1. Submission shall be referenced appropriately.