A.07.24.01_SF1442_Amend_01_R_17-R-0018.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

Project: W912GB-17-R-0018, IDIQ JOC FOR GERMANY WEST, BELGIUM, AND THE NETHERLANDS Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to RFIs, provide a revised ATTACH 2 (ExpInfoSheet), ATTACH 3 (Past Performance Client Form) & 5 (BLA Template), delete references to a Design Quality Manager in Section 00 21 00 Proposal Submission and Section 00 22 00 Basis for Aw ard, and correct FAR Clause 52.000-4062 Bank Letter of Guaranty

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 19

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Apr-2017

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-17-R-0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Apr-2017

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

28-Apr-2017

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-17-R-0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

AMEND 01 RFIS

Question 1: Page 11 of 78 in the solicitation mentions a Bank Letter of Assurance in value of €1,800,000, whereas Attachment 5, sample BLA states the amount of € 1,500,000. Please clarify.

Answer 1: Per revised Attach 5 (BLA), the corrected amount is €1,800,000 ($2,000,000)

Question 2: Page 3 of Attachment A3, Past Performance Questionnaire, Item 5 d) and e) asks for a rating, whereas this is a yes/no question. Please clarify.

Answer 2: Per revised Attach 3 (PPQ), 5 d) and e) has been corrected.

Question 3: On Page 24 of 78 the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 3 Management Approach is described.

Under 2.d. the Design Quality Manager is mentioned and the proposal should include a description. What is the purpose of this, as the Solicitation shall end in a performance and not a design-built contract?

Answer 3: Per subject amendment, all references to a Design Quality Manager have been deleted.

Question 4: On Page 11 it`s described to provide the BLG within 14 calendar days with an amount of €15,000,000. On Page 65 it`s described to provide the BLG within 7 calendar days with an amount of € 15,000,000. The sample for the BLA describes to deliver a BLG within 14 calendar days with at least 25% of the estimated yearly value (this means: 111,900,000 / 5 x 25% = 5,600,000 €).

Answer 4: Per subject amendment, the BLG is due within 14 calendar days of award in the amount of €15,000,000 ($17,000,000).

A revised BLA attachment has been provided via Amendment 01.

Question 5: The provided Experience Information Sheet, Attachment 2, includes the category

c. New Construction. As this category is not included on

Answer 5: Per revised Attach 2 (ExpInfoSheet), the category of “New Construction” has been removed.

Attachment 1, Experience Overview Sheet, and within the Submission Requirements of Factor 1, Experience, please provide a changed Attachment 2, if conformity of the documents is intended by the government.

Question 6: Please provide a summary of changes from the former “A.01.13 UPB_Germany_Italy_Europe_2015- 2005.pdf” file (FY16 JOC Germany, Belgium, Netherlands - Solicitation) to the current UPB-file: “A.07.23

ATTACH 8 UPB

Germany_Italy_Europe 2016 17-R- 0018.docx” of this solicitation.

Answer 6: A summary of changes between the 2015 and 2016 versions of the JOC Unit Price Book (UPB) is not available. Offerors shall review the most recent 2016 UPB in its entirety to determine the changes.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (00 21 00)

1. INTRODUCTION: The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted via AMRDEC. The solicitation shall provide AMRDEC instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. 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. The proposal shall be organized, concise, and shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. The proposal shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover. If the Offeror is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), the Offeror should identify the SAM Registration’s CAGE Code and/or DUNS Number.

d. The proposal shall contain a table of contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

e. Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s), for the three technical factors.

f. Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

g. 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.

h. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

i. 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.

j. Volume I: Offerors shall verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct, and complete including name(s) of the point(s) of contact (POCs), email address(es), and telephone number(s), for the one technical factor.

k. Volume II: The Pricing Schedule shall be completed in full, including all option periods, and the Non-Pre-Priced coefficient.

l. Volume II: Offerors shall submit a signed Offer, Standard Form (SF) 1442 for this solicitation, including verification of all amendments received.

m. Volume II: Bank Letter of Assurance and Bank Letter of Guarantee.

The Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) or Bid Bond shall be €1,800,000 ($2,000,000) and submitted with the proposal. The BLA will be returned upon contract award to all unsuccessful Offerors. For the successful Offeror, the BLA will be retained until the BLG has been received and approved. A Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) shall be provided within 14 calendar days of contract award, in the amount of €15,000,000 ($17,000,000).

In addition to providing an electronic version of the BLA as part of the Volume II proposal, Offerors are to mail the original BLA to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Contracting Division (CENAU-CT) Attention: Anthony Melicharek & Jeffrey Holt 7th Floor, Room A717 Konrad-Adenauer Ring 39 65187 Wiesbaden Germany

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.

3. JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience and past performance of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The experience for each Joint Venture Partner should be clearly described.

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 and past performance 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. Include this information as a part of Volume I.

9) A complete and legally binding document with all the information required under this section titled “Joint Ventures” shall be included. The JV agreement submitted to the Government shall be the only valid JV agreement for purposes of performance under this contract or any responsibilities of the JV under the contract. Any changes to the JV agreement must be submitted to the Contracting Officer and is subject to approval by the Government prior to execution of the change.

4. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience and past performance of a Key Subcontractor, a letter of commitment signed by the Key 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 Key Subcontractor is a 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. Include this information as part of Volume I.

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format:

1. Volume I – Factor One (1) – Experience, Factor Two (2) – Past Performance;

Factor Three (3) – Management Approach; This shall include the following (If applicable): Letter(s) of Commitment, Joint Venture Agreement; This volume shall include the information as detailed in “PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR

VOLUME I.”

2. Volume II – Price/Administrative Proposal, Factor Four (4) – Price Submit BLA or Bid Bond with Price Schedule; This volume shall include the information as detailed in “PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR PHASE II, VOLUME II,” below.

Proposals shall be submitted utilizing the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center Safe Access File Exchange (AMRDEC SAFE) Application at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe. The AMRDEC SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone.

a. The AMRDEC SAFE application can be accessed via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.

b. There are two options to proceed from the SAFE homepage:

o Proceed as Guest

c. After selecting the option above, the page will be redirected to the package upload form. Fill in all the required input fields:

o Your Name - Your name;

o Your Email address - Your email address;

o Confirm Your Email Address - Re-enter your email address;

o Description of File(s) - Enter W912GB17R0018-COMPANY NAME:

o File(s) - Click the "Browse" button to select your file(s). You may add up to 25 files per package, so long as the total file size does not exceed 2GB;

File names shall be titled:

1. W912GB17R0018 – Company Name- Volume I

2. W912GB17R0018 – Company Name – Volume II o Deletion Date - Select the Maximum date for the package to be deleted from SAFE. The maximum (which is also the default) is two weeks (14 days) from today;

o Provide an email address to give access to – Enter---- anthony.r.melicharek@usace.army.mil, jeffrey.holt@usace.army.mil, erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil, and cenau.proposal@usace.army.mil o Grant access to these people - This is the list of people you have granted access to the package. To remove a recipient, highlight their name and click the "Remove" button;

o Caveats - Default is "None";

o Encrypt email message when possible - Attempt to encrypt the package's notification email to each recipient;

o Notify me when files are downloaded - You (the sender) will receive a notification via email when a recipient downloads the package;

o Require CAC for pickup - Require the recipient to be logged in with a valid US DoD-issued CAC to download the file(s). Recipients without a CAC will not be able to download the package.

d. Clicking the "Submit" button will upload the files and submit the package. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

e. After the package has been uploaded (and verified, if proceeding as a guest), each recipient will receive a link to the package download page as well as a password. These passwords are unique for each recipient (not the package), and will be disabled once SAFE detects that the user successfully downloaded each file within the package.

Forwarding recipient and sender notification emails to anyone except the AMRDEC WEB Team is strictly forbidden.

Proposal submission shall be submitted via AMRDEC by the date and time indicated on the SF 1442, or as amended. No facsimiles or regular e-mail submissions of proposals, with the exception of Attachment Three (3), Past Performance Questionnaires, are permitted:

Proposal Receipt Confirmation Points of Contact:

E-mail: anthony.r.melicharek@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2385

E-mail: jeffrey.holt@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-2236

E-mail: erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil Telephone: +49(0)611-9744-6711

PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR VOLUME I

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit two attachments, Attachment 1, Experience Overview Sheet and Attachment 2, Experience Information Sheet detailing previous work experience projects meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

The prime contractor must have performed at least 3 of the 5 projects submitted for experience. This aspect of Experience is a pass/fail element. Offerors must submit at least three (3) projects that were performed by the prime (i.e. the offeror). In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

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 five (5) projects that best represent the Offeror’s work experience required on this solicitation. Projects must be performed within the last six (6) years from the date of this solicitation or currently being performed if at least 50% complete, as of the date of this solicitation, If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated. If the project is older than 6 years, it may be considered less relevant.

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

2. Projects provided for experience should demonstrate the experience in managing multiple projects performed simultaneously. Projects also should show experience in performance in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands (countries listed in descending order of importance); be between €50,000 to €1,000,000; and including the elements listed below. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a distinct scope of work with a measurable monetary value within a larger project that is considered relevant to this procurement. An example could be a single contract that includes separate facilities, or buildings, or phased construction. Offerors shall clearly describe the scope and how it related to the overall contract. Small projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant. Projects should demonstrate experience in:

a. Renovations of buildings

b. Replacement to include major building systems (electrical, mechanical, structural, etc.) repaired or replaced;

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

d. Hazardous material abatement and disposal work.

Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant characteristics as possible.

3. The prime contractor must have performed at least 3 of the 5 projects submitted for experience. Offerors must submit at least three (3) projects that were performed by the prime (i.e. the offeror). In case of a Joint Venture, the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. This is a Pass/Fail element as described in the Evaluation Criteria. Offerors who do not meet this minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

4. If a Key Subcontractor’s experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, clearly address the experience with those Key Subcontractors. If a Joint Venture, clearly address the experience of each of the Joint Venture Partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previous projects. The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Partners or the Prime and Key subcontractor working successfully together on relevant previous projects.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

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 each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the 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, Anthony Melicharek via email at anthony.r.melicharek@usace.army.mil and cenau.proposal@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, DD2626 form or a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR), in lieu of Attachment 3. CPARS evaluations and DD2626s shall be signed or finalized by all designated authorities for consideration of evaluation.

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, commercial and foreign government evaluations and any other forms of performance recognition. To the extent such documentation is not in the English language, a translation must be provided in order for the documentation to be considered.

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, JV, 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 and the government is under no obligation to check other sources.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Submission Requirements:

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will not be evaluated by the Government.

The Offeror shall submit a graphical description (an organization chart) of its planned organization structure for successful execution of the contract. There is a limit of fifty (50) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equal two pages. If more than 50 pages are submitted, only the first 50 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart and letters of commitment are not considered part of the 50 pages. The Management Approach shall include the following:

1. An organization chart (graph) that shows: a) lines of authority and communication for the execution of the contract; b) clearly shows the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Program Manager, Project Manager ,Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Safety Manager, c) the organization chart shall also include all JV Partners and Key Subcontractors, when applicable; and d) the chart shall identify all offices involved in this contract from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s), and how they are related; all positions shall be identified on the organization chart by title, organization, and physical location. The Project Manager, or the on-site person that communicates with the U.S. Government if the PM is not on-site, and any other personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government shall be clearly identified.

2. A narrative description of the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all JV Partners, Key Subcontractors, and key personnel shall be described. The position titles used in the narrative must match those used in the organization chart. Offerors are encouraged to become familiar with personnel requirements located in specification Sections 01 45 01 USACE Quality Control; 01 35 26 Health and Occupational Safety Requirements; and 00 73 15 General Requirements.

3. The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of five (5) concurrent task orders for general building construction, with no design build, with a total value of €5,000,000 (each project with an estimated value of €1,000,000), including mobilization to the site; how to staff multiple field offices with key personnel currently employed by the prime, and/or JV, Subcontractor; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by subcontractors.

PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR VOLUME II

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Submission Requirements

a. Offerors shall submit a completed Pricing Schedule, containing the Contractor determined Price Coefficients for all base and option periods.

1. Coefficient Definitions

Contractor’s coefficients shall contain all costs in addition to those contained in the Unit Price Book (UPB).

The Unit Price Book is part of the awarded contract and will be used by the Government to determine maximum prices for negotiations and awards of Task Orders.

The Unit Price Book is based on the German construction standards (Deutsches Institut fur Normung e.V.)

DIN Standards. Provided as part of the contract document, is a cross referencing sheet that correlates the DIN Standards to European Standards.

Coefficients are a numerical factor that represents costs (indirect and direct costs) not included in the UPB.

The Contractor's coefficients shall contain all Contractors’ costs inclusive of profit, all overhead to include home office and field overhead, cost escalation, labor burden, insurance, adjustments to listed prices, general and administrative expenses, subcontractor mark-up, mobilization and demobilization, and all other costs, including but not limited to, compliance with environmental laws, permits, preparation of reports, correspondence and documentation required by law or the contract specifications, tax laws, protection and/or moving of government property and engineering services. Engineering services include those services that are incidental to construction, and completing submittals for construction work. The coefficients shall also include costs necessary to interface with Government representatives, and coordination with occupants and other contractors when required. For more information see Section 01 30 00, Administrative Requirements.

2. Coefficient Line Item Numbers

Offerors shall propose a Coefficient for each book under the columns entitled “Coefficient for normal hours @ .95” and “Coefficient for other than normal hours @ .05”.

The coefficients are proposed by Offerors as a numerical factor as an increase, (e.g., 1.10) or decrease (e.g., 0.90) to the UPB. Coefficients proposed on the Pricing Schedule are accepted upon award and shall be applied to prices in the correlating Unit Price Book when ordering Task Orders under this contract on a non-competitive basis.

3. Validity of Coefficients Each set of coefficients for the base period (3 years) and each of the two (2) option periods (1 year each) shall be valid and remain in full force for a minimum of 1 year, even if an option period is exercised prior to the 1 year period.

4. Completing Pricing Schedule

Offerors shall submit a completed Pricing Schedule as part of the Price Proposal Package. In addition to the completed Pricing Schedule, Offerors shall complete the Electronic Pricing Schedule which is part of this solicitation located on the internet solicitation site. The Electronic Pricing Schedule is in EXCEL format.

a. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall contain coefficients for all of the pricing schedule line item coefficients for the base period and the two (2) option periods.

b. Failure to submit Price Schedule and failure to complete all Line Items on the Price Schedule, including the base year and all options years; and failure to complete the Electronic Pricing Schedule, including all base and option years; may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

5. Column Definitions of the Pricing Schedule

The following is offered as definitions of columns as numbered on Row 4 for the Pricing Schedule and Electronic Pricing Schedule:

a. The first column is a ‘Line Item Number’ that is used by the Government for administrative tracking and ordering.

b. The second column is the ‘Book Number’ that refers to the associated construction discipline book in the Unit Price Book (UPB).

c. The third column is a short ‘Description’ of the construction discipline book.

d. The fourth column is the proposed “Coefficient for normal hours @ .95” and shall be used for evaluation purposes and it is the maximum price used to administer this contract.

e. The fifth column is the proposed “Coefficient for other than normal hours @ .05” and shall be used for evaluation purposes and it is the maximum price used to administer this contract.

e. The sixth column is the Government assigned Weight Factor. These Weight Factors range from two (2) least often used to eight (8) most often used.

f. The seventh column is the ‘Line Item Weight’’ which is a product derived by multiplying the proposed ‘Coefficient’ by the ‘Weight Factor’ and shall be used for evaluation purposes.

g. The ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of all ‘Line Item Weights’ and shall be used for evaluation purposes.

h. The Total ‘Bottom Line Sum’ is the sum of the ‘Bottom Line Sum’ for the Base Period plus all Option Periods (including the evaluation of the 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services), and is used as the basis for award in addition to consideration of the Coefficients, Line Item Weights, and Bottom Line Sums, see FACTOR 4 – PRICE, Evaluation Criteria.

6. Mathematical Format

Proposed coefficients shall be carried no further than two (2) decimal places. The rate shall constitute a composite rate which includes the contractors cost including all overhead and profit which may be encountered during the performance of this contract.

7. Contract Administration Coefficients

The proposed coefficients on the Price Schedule used for evaluation purposes located in the fourth column and it is the maximum price used during the administration of this contract for Task Orders, see Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work.

8. Currency

The Unit Price Book is based on Euro amounts. Contractors complete the Price Schedule utilizing the Euro for pricing purposes. However, the Government reserves the right to award Task Orders and make payments for the life of the base contract and all exercised options in Euros or Dollars. The currency will be specified in the awarded contract.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (Section 00 22 00)

When the word ‘Offeror’ is encountered throughout this Section, 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, it is intended to mean USACE NAU.

The requirements for the preparation and submission of proposals and the requirements for the evaluation of proposals in response to this solicitation are contained in the Request for Proposals, Section 00 22 00. Subject to the provisions contained herein, the award will be made to one Offeror who is 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 four (4) factors: Experience, Past Performance, Management Approach, and Price.

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

The relative weight of the evaluation factors is as follows: Factor 1, Experience is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance, Past Performance is significantly more important than Factor 3, Management Approach, and when combined, the three non-cost factors are approximately equal to Factor 4, Price.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. The awarded contract will incorporate the successful offeror’s proposal to the extent it does not conflict with the solicitation requirements.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of all the evaluation factors. IAW FAR 15.304, the following factors will be considered in evaluating the proposals:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Management Approach Factor 4 – Price

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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 been 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.

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.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. General Information: The Government does not intend to hold discussions. However, in accordance with FAR

15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. Discussion Scheduling: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification of discussions.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Experience contains a pass/fail element. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror submitted at least three (3) projects that were performed by the prime (i.e. the Offeror). In case of a Joint Venture (JV), the work must have been performed by at least one of the JV partners. Offerors who do not meet that minimum requirement are not eligible for award.

2. The Government will evaluate the depth, recency and the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

a. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands (countries listed in descending order of importance).

b. Experience managing multiple projects performed simultaneously.

c. Projects with a cost of €50,000 to €1,000,000.

3. Projects considered fully relevant shall be completed within the last six (6) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation; performed in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands (listed in descending order of importance); between €50,000 and €1,000,000; and include the following:

a. Renovations of buildings

b. Replacement to include major building systems (electrical, mechanical, structural, etc.) repaired or replaced;

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

d. Hazardous material abatement and disposal work.

The following characteristics will impact relevancy (in no order of importance):

Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple trades are considered more relevant.

Projects older than 6 years from the date of the solicitation may be considered, but will be considered less relevant.

Project examples that demonstrate experience working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners working together are considered more relevant.

Projects valued less than €50,000 may be considered, but will be considered less relevant.

Larger projects with a measureable monetary value and scope of work that is relevant to this procurement will be considered.

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

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor 1 Experience, for recent projects. The Government will 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 from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete).

The proposal may receive a higher rating if the proposal contains evidence of the Joint Venture Entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects.

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 JV 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.

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:

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.

The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are as follows:

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Proposals will be evaluated for feasibility, reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a detailed understanding of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate 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 Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

2. Whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the

a. Project Manager

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

b. Site Superintendent

c. Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Systems Manager; and

d. Site, Safety, and Health Officer (SSHO), and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, security manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc.).

3. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of five (5) simultaneous task orders that illustrates a detailed understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontracting and staffing plan.

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

Technical Ratings

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than

MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an…