Amendment_01_W912GB-16-R-0010.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide information for the Pre-Proposal Conference. Also changes to the Solicitation have been incorporated and identif ied by underlined text.

USACE Europe District w ill be hosting the Pre-Proposal Conference on 14 January 2016 starting at 1000 Local Time in Budapest Hungary.

Firms must pre-register to obtain additional location information as only firms that pre-register w ill be allow ed to attend. To pre-register, please send the company name, the company telephone number and the first and last names of attendee's to robert.e.corkrum@usace.army.mil no later than 11 January 2016 at 1600 (CET).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Jan-2016

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-16-R-0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Dec-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

06-Jan-2016

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-16-R-0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

**References to Government throughout the solicitation and subsequent contract awards, refer to the United States Government, unless otherwise noted***

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 00)

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to two but not more than five Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value to the Government. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of five factors: experience, past performance, management approach, design capability and price.

Experience is slightly more important than Past Performance, Past Performance is slightly more important than Management Approach, and Management Approach is slightly more important than Design and Construction Capability and when combined, the four technical factors are significantly more important than Price.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government. Unreasonably high or low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range based upon an assessment that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.

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. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Phase I :

Factor 1 - Experience

Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 - Management Approach

Phase II:

Factor 4 - Design Capability Factor 5 – Price

2. EVALUATION APPROACH (Section 00 22 00)

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

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 solicitation. 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 solicitation.

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 (Section 00 22 10)

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Evaluation Criteria:

The Offeror will be evaluated on the depth and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Hungary or EU, projects in Hungary will be considered more relevant.

b. Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously.

c. If Key Subcontractor or JV experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, project examples that demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or JV Partners are considered more relevant.

d. Projects with a cost of €50,000 to €10,000,000. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a scope of work with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within a larger project. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction.

Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract.

Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

e. Projects that demonstrate experience in all the required categories listed in PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE, Submission Requirements. Offerors demonstrating multiple projects with experience in multiple categories are considered more relevant than Offerors submitting one example.

Offerors may provide projects completed within the last six (6) years or at least 50 percent complete.

Projects considered relevant shall be completed or at least 50% complete; performed in Hungary or EU;

projects performed in Hungary are considered more relevant; performed within the last six years; between €50,000 and €10,000,000; including the following trades.

a. Renovations of buildings with detailed descriptions of all major building systems repaired or replaced;

b. New work – Construction of new buildings with detailed descriptions of the work;

c. Concrete and/or asphalt roads, pavements, airfield runway work;

d. Design-build construction projects.

For Projects that are not considered fully relevant, the Government will consider in its evaluation how the projects demonstrate various aspects of relevancy.

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

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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.

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.

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.

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.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Criteria:

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 completed in the last 6 years or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete) only.

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. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government. 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.

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 projects and 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.

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

2. 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.

3. 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:

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.

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.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will consider the following:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the Government, on the organizational chart (graph) organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. The proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the PM, QC Manager, and Safety Manager, and other key personnel, including roles of authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs presented as a logical approach to perform the work throughout the contract,

3. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan of simultaneous performance of two (2) task orders, illustrates a thorough understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or Joint Venture agreements, when applicable.

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

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

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.

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.

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.

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.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is un-awardable.

PHASE II (Section 00 22 20)

FACTOR 4: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CAPABILITY

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for completeness, reasonableness, and logic and the degree to which the plan describes a viable strategy to execute design for an ordered project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan in relation to their design capabilities described below as follows:

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

2. Certification requirement(s)

3. Plan shall demonstrate offerors understanding of certification and registration requirements for construction companies in Hungary and ability to meet these requirements.

The 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.

FACTOR 5: PRICE

Evaluation Criteria:

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed Coefficients for the base period and all option periods.

The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

1. Completeness - To be complete, the Offeror shall provide coefficients for all base and all option line items. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed coefficients comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

2. Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.404-1 (b). For price to be reasonable, it will 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. The Offeror's proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if any are reasonable IAW with FAR 15.404 and may include comparison to each other and to the Independent Government Estimate.

3. Basis for award for price is based on the ‘Total Bottom Line Sum’ which is the sum of the ‘Bottom

Line Sum’ for the Base Period plus all Option Periods (including the option period for FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). If any inconsistencies exist, whether real or apparent, between the proposed performance and proposed coefficients (price), these inconsistencies shall be clearly explained in the Price Proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced and/or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and the impact on price shall be completely documented.

4. Line Item Weight - The ‘Line Item Weight’ is used as part of the evaluation of price offers and is the maximum price allowed to administer this contract. The ‘Line Item Weight’ is the product of the proposed Coefficient multiplied by the Weight Factor. The ‘Line Item Weight’ for “Books Ordered Often” and “Books Ordered Least Often” is the product of the number of books (11) multiplied by proposed Coefficient multiplied by the Weight Factor.

Formula (Books Ordered Most Often):

Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

Numerical Example:

1.45 x 8 = 11.6 Line Item Weight

Formula (Books Ordered Often):

Number of Books x Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

11 x 1.45 x 6 = 95.7 Line Item Weight

Formula (Books Ordered Least Often):

Number of Books x Coefficient x Weight Factor = Line Item Weight

11 x 1.45 x 2 = 31.9 Line Item Weight

(These numbers are only an Example and are not intended for a suggested pricing coefficient)

5. Determination of the Bottom Line Sum - The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is used for evaluation of price offers in addition to the ‘Line Item Weight’. The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of all Line Item Weights located in Column Six. Basis for award is based on the ‘Total Bottom Line Sum’, which is the sum of the Base Period ‘Bottom Line Sum’ plus the ‘Bottom Line Sum’ for all Option Periods.

6. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall contain coefficients for all of the pricing schedule pre-priced line item coefficients for the base period and all option periods.

7. In the event of a conflict between Pricing Schedule and the CD containing the completed EXCEL

Electronic Pricing Schedule, Pricing Schedule hard copy shall prevail.

SECTION 01 00 00 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

SECTION 01 11 00

SUMMARY OF WORK

1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

a. PERFORMANCE PERIOD: A base period of one (1) year and four (4) option periods of one (1) year each.

b. MAXIMUM CONTRACT VALUE: Not-to-exceed $49,995,000 for the life of contract.

c. MINIMUM GUARANTEE: The minimum guarantee amount is $5,000 for the base year and is the full amount in consideration for all years.

d. TASK ORDER LIMITATIONS: The Minimum Task Order is $50,000 and the Maximum Task Order is limited to $10,000,000. All task orders will be awarded and invoices paid in Euros or Dollars.

e. BANK LETTER OF GUARANTEE and LETTER OF ASSURANCE: The Bank Letter of Assurance shall be $500,000. The Bank Letters of Guarantee will be provided per task order.

f. UNIT PRICE BOOK (UPB): The Schedule of Services and rates (SSR), dated 2015, is to be used as the contract specification in the execution of work under this contract.

g. UNIT PRICE BOOK is the terminology used by the U.S. Army for Schedule of Services and Rates (SSR). The terms shall be used interchangeably in this solicitation and final contract.

h. The terms shall be used interchangeably in this solicitation and final contract.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE:

The purpose of this Europe District (NAU) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to provide real property repair and maintenance, environmental work, force protection work, and construction services in the areas identified below.

Use of the MATOC will provide the Government with a construction product delivery method that can accommodate quick and straight-forward projects, as well as some small but complex projects, and can help minimize design effort and related overhead expenditures, as well as handle compressed schedules.

Task Orders will primarily address new construction, design-build, general building renovation, road and pavement repair, and general environmental work including, but not limited to, incidental minor construction, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, concrete work, and environmental remedial work. Contract awards are anticipated for any work for US Forces and/or Facilities in Hungary.

1.3 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

The geographical area covered by this contract includes Government facilities throughout Hungary.

The Government reserves the right to issue additional contracts in the area of responsibility.

(End of Summary of Changes)