W912GB-16-R-0030 _Amd_08.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

Amendment 0008 is being issued to

(1) clarify proposal submission requirements. No electronic submissions w ill be accepted.

(2) revised Factor 3: Management Plan, 2-Execution, Factor 3 (see next page for revision in GREEN)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jun-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-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Apr-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Jun-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-0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 0008

CLARIFY PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

All proposals must be submitted accroding to the Proposal Submission Requirements as stated in the solicitation. No electronic submissions will be accepted.

Volume I: Technical Proposals due: 06 July 2016, 1500 Central European Summer Time (CEST) Volume II: Price Proposals due: 12 July 2016, 1500 Central European Summer Time (CEST)

REVISION TO SOLICITATION

Section 00 21 00 – Instructions Factor 3: Management Plan 2.-Execution

The Offeror shall provide a summary schedule in sufficient detail to show how the required work will be accomplished within the time allotted. The schedule shall identify and address long lead-time items and describe any phasing required for this project. The schedule shall also address the submittals and government reviews and approval periods. For the purposes of this section only, the Offeror shall use the date of 02 January 2017 for Notice to Proceed and should prepare the schedule assuming Option 1 will be awarded 02 April 2017 (90 calendar days after the base NTP) and Option 2 will be awarded 01 Aug 2017 (121 calendar days after award of Option 1). 01 June 2017 (91 days after award of Option 1).

that all options will be awarded at the time of award.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 21 00)

When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout Section 00 21 00, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government and said company submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered throughout this Section 00 21 00, it is intended to mean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one (1) Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal is determined to be technically acceptable and offers the Best-Value to the Government. This source selection approach, called Best-Value Tradeoff, includes an evaluation of all factors: experience, past performance, management plan, and price. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price Offeror; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor will become greater as the non-price factors of proposals approach equality. The greater the equality of non-price factors of 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.

Relative Importance of Factors: The proposals will be evaluated based on the four (4) evaluation factors: Non-price Factor One (1) Experience, Factor Two (2) Past Performance, and Factor Three (3) Management Plan, and Price Factor Four (4) Price.

All non-price factors are of equal importance and when combined are significantly more important than price.

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 its experience.

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

Factor 3: Management Plan: The Offeror’s management plan will be evaluated for the reasonableness, risk, and logic associated with the overall organization structure and how it is staffed to execute the entire scope of work in accordance with the project schedule.

Factor 4: 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.

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.

FACTOR 1- EXPERIENCE

1. The Proposal shall contain no more than five (5) projects performed within five (5) 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 five (5) projects submitted, at least two projects should be for the prime contractor and in the case of a joint venture, at least one project for each joint venture partner. The Offeror will be evaluated on the depth and relevance of their experience as submitted in the proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

• Projects which involve construction of large-scale aircraft operation and maintenance facilities including hangars, support buildings, and fuel stations.

• Projects with substantial concrete and steel works.

• Projects with significant road and runway works.

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

• Projects that demonstrate experience working in Israel.

• Projects demonstrating that the offeror’s team members (including Key

Personnel, subcontractors, commissioning specialist and/or Joint Venture partners) 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 completed (as opposed to in-progress or on-going).

• Projects performed within the last five (5) years. Projects older than five (5) years will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant.

• One (1) project completed within the last 5 years of the solicitation date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) demonstrating the Prime Contractor’s experience working in the United States of a similar magnitude, scope, complexity and schedule to the work required under this solicitation.

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 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to a slightly lesser extent other U.S. Government agencies, are considered more relevant.

3. Projects demonstrating experience in multiple categories listed above will be considered more relevant than projects demonstrating one category.

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 five (5) projects are submitted, only the first 5 (five) will be evaluated. If less than five (5) 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.

6. 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 base 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:

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

1. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project

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.

work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for projects performed within five

(5) years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete). 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.

2. 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 and deemed appropriate. 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 its 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.

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

4. In evaluating relevancy and determining a confidence assessment of past performance, the following shall also be taken into consideration:

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 of Offeror’s past performance.

5. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: In accordance with 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.

6. Additional Past Performance Evaluation Information:

a. Negative comments received from data gathered by the Government will not necessarily result in an adverse rating. However, negative comments from relevant past performance sources may negatively impact the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. 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.

b. The Offeror shall ensure that the identified references and points of contact speak English, if possible, and are aware they may be contacted for information. Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available. The Government may also consider other past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror.

c. At no time during the evaluation process, in the debriefing, or after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offeror or to any other party.

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 PLAN

The Offeror’s management plan will be evaluated for its 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 management plan which includes the organizational structure and staffing and execution plan will be rated as one factor. The Government will consider the organization and clarity of the management plan and whether the management plan:

1. Clearly delineated lines of authority on the organizational chart in a precise and logical manner including the relationship between the site office and USACE, including all involved with the management of the contract, for example, 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 positions are located.

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. Key personnel positions 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. If proposed Key Personnel are currently employed by someone other than the Prime Contractor, a signed letter of commitment must be signed by both parties and submitted with the proposal.

Resumes of Key Personnel: The Offeror’s Key Personnel will be evaluated based on the information provided in the resumes. Resumes shall follow the format provided in Attachment 4. The minimum qualifications for the Key Personnel are listed below, and if the Key Personnel resumes submitted do not demonstrate these qualifications then the Key Personnel will not be considered to meet the minimum requirements for this Factor, and will receive an unacceptable rating in this Factor. 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.

a. Minimum experience for the Key Personnel shall include experience with at least one (1) similar project in the role for which they are proposed.

Minimum experience and education requirements must be in accordance with USACE Specifications and the following:

The Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Safety Manager and Health Manager each must have five (5) years of construction experience similar in size and complexity to that required in this solicitation.

The Site Superintendent must have ten (10) years of construction experience similar in size and complexity to that required in this solicitation.

Additional QC Personnel (civil, electrical, mechanical, and structural) must have two (2) years of construction experience similar in size and complexity to that required in this solicitation.

Experience must be on a project of the same type and nature as the work identified in the project scope of work, and be on a contract with the government of the United States of America, either with the US Army Corps of Engineers or Department of Defense agencies.

4. A precise explanation illustrating an understanding of the contract requirements by describing management for performance of the contract including mobilization, summary of quality control plan, staffing of the field offices, plan to supply labor including manpower loading, 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.

5. A project schedule and resource leveling plan that accounts for all contract requirements. The schedule will be evaluated for understanding of the project scope, risks, and restrictions which must be considered (e.g., long lead supply and materials, identification of critical path items, logicalness of proposed phasing, etc.). The resource leveling plan will be evaluated for its ability to demonstrate how the project scope will be accomplished within budget and on schedule. Further, the Offeror’ schedule must specifically demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the milestones specified in the price schedule and specification sections. 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, base access, manpower availability, critical milestones, 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 adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT PLAN are listed and defined below:

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Basis of Evaluation

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.

The Government will evaluate price based on the total evaluated price. Total evaluated price consists of the price of all Contract Line Items (CLINs) base and all options in the Price Schedule, Off-Shore Procurement (OSP) Worksheet, the supporting pricing narrative and the Markup Rates.

(a) For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will include the following:

(1) Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s proposal.

(2) Evaluation will determine the offeror’s comprehension of the requirements of the RFP as well as to assess the degree to which the proposed price accurately reflects proposed performance.

(b) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(1) Comparison of total proposed price(s) received in response to the solicitation;

(2) Comparison of proposed price received in response to the solicitation to the Independent Government Estimate;

(3) Comparison of proposed price received in response to the solicitation with available historical information;

(4) Comparison of proposed price received in response to the solicitation with market research;

(5) Analysis of congruence between technical and price proposals to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices as well as potential performance risk.

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 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, 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 Price Schedule and completing the Offshore Procurement (OSP) worksheet. 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 unreasonably high or low in relation to the anticipated work under the contract as well as with current industry standards. 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 Offeror shall also declare their method for determining their Field Office Overhead (FOOH) rate in accordance with the FAR. As 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.

Failure to submit complete the Pricing Schedule and failure to complete all Contract Line Items may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject any and all offers. However, offers found to be unreasonably high or low, may be considered unacceptable and rejected on that basis.

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) The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices.

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 00 21 00)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. Volume 1: Technical Proposal and 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 or emails of Volume I or Volume II are permitted:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Europe District Contracting Division (CENAU-CT) Attn: Oksana Strekha, Contracting Specialist 7th Floor, Room A-704 Konrad-Adenauer Ring 39 D-65187 Wiesbaden Germany

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

The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the RFP 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. Offerors shall submit a CD copy of each Volume, including the Electronic Price Schedule. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Word or Adobe, Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel. In the case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposal submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence.

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 (Attachment 10), Change Order Markup Rates (Attachment 8), Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Attachment 9), and OSP Worksheet (Attachment 7) shall be completed in full, including all options.

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 and OSP Worksheet.

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. If the offeror wishes to restrict the disclosure or use of its proposal, use the legend permitted by FAR 52.215-1(e). Individual subcontractor/vendor proprietary information may be submitted via separate binders/CDs. The information contained in these binders/CDs must be referenced (by binder title, page and section number as appropriate) within the main proposal where the information would have been included if it were not subcontractor/vendor proprietary. The information in these separate binders/CDs is subject to all other requirements of the RFP and must be well-marked to clearly indicate any special handling instructions.

n. 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.

o. Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

Committed Key Personnel

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience and expertise of a committed key personnel (i.e., a key personnel that is not currently hired by the prime contractor) a letter of commitment signed by the key personnel and the prime contractor shall be submitted. The contractor and the key personnel shall enter into an employment relationship if a contract is awarded to the contractor. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. The Offeror shall include their letter(s) of commitment as part of Volume I.

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

PROPOSAL PACKAGE

ORIGINAL COPIES CD

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 1 6 1

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

This volume shall also include the following:

Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment 1), Experience Information Sheet

(Attachment 2), USACE Past Performance Questionaire (Attachment 3), Key Personnel Resumes (Attachment 4), Letters of Commitments for Key Personnel and Committed Subcontractors (Attachments 5 and 6), and

Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL 1 0 1

FACTOR 4 – Price

This volume shall also include the following:

OSP Worksheet (Attachment 7), Proposed Change Order Markups (Attachment 8), Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Attachment 9), Price Schedule (Attachment 10), Signed SF 1442, and Executed Bid Bond.

be considered. The Offeror shall include their letter(s) of commitment as part of Volume I.

Joint Ventures.

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.

The joint venture agreement submitted to the government shall be complete and shall be considered to be the sole agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of the joint venture members with respect to performance of this contract. Any secondary agreements or other instruments not provided to the government as part of the proposal shall be null and void with respect to the contract.

Additionally, the bid bond must cover the joint venture or else all members of the joint venture and must be signed by a party having authority to do so under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The SF 1442 must be signed by a party or parties authorized to sign for the joint venture under the terms of the joint venture.

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:

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Offerors shall submit two attachments, Attachment 1 – Experience Overview Sheet and Attachment 2 – Project Experience Form, 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) five (5) projects, performed within five (5) 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 five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. If less than five (5) projects are submitted the proposal may not receive the highest rating possible. Offerors should not submit an overarching IDIQ contract 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. Firm-fixed-priced, fixed price incentive and fixed price award fee contracts that demonstrated the relevant characteristics below will be considered more relevant than cost reimbursement and time and materials type contracts. Most relevant projects are those that have qualities such as:

Projects which involve construction of large-scale aircraft operation and maintenance facilities including hangars, support buildings, and fuel stations.

Projects with substantial concrete and steel works.

Projects with significant road and runway works.

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

Projects that demonstrate experience working in Israel.

Projects demonstrating that the offeror’s team members (including Key

Personnel, subcontractors, commissioning specialist and/or Joint Venture partners) 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 completed (as opposed to in-progress or on-going).

Projects performed within the last five (5) years. Projects older than five

(5) years will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant.

One (1) project completed within the last 5 years of the solicitation date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) demonstrating the Prime Contractor’s experience working in the United States of a similar magnitude, scope, complexity and schedule to the work required under this solicitation.

c. 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.