W912GB-18-R-0003-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) update transition plan/management approach to single spaced vice double spaced typed pages

2) set proposal acceptance time at 120 days from proposal due date

3) update that projects submitted, for the experience and past performance factors, must have been completed w ith-in the last 5 years from date of solicitation

4) update any reference of Project Manager to Program Manager in the transition plan/management approach factor,

5) Update Attachment 4, 5, 6, 6a, 7 and 7.

6) Extend the solicitation close date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Apr-2018

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 W912GB18R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Mar-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Apr-2018

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:

W912GB18R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 26-Apr-2018 02:00 PM to 04-May-2018 02:00 PM.

The depository location has changed from elecontronically to electronically.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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 Mangement (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) 33 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.

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.

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

1. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS:

As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.). The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent;

substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the J.V. submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business

Administration Office for this specific requirement. The agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so.

Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

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 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 (See Appendix I, Sample Letter of Commitment).

5. PROPOSAL FORMAT

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 one of the options 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 W912GB18R0003 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;

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 Dean DeFord at:

Dean.P.DeFord@usace.army.mil, and Kristina Morrow at:

Kristina.Morrow@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 1449, or as amended. Proposals are considered timely if uploaded to AMRDEC site by the date/time specified (in Central European Time). Offerors are cautioned to not wait until the last minute to upload the files as system issues may result in proposals being received late. 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: Dean DeFord at:

Dean.P.DeFord@usace.army.mil, and Kristina Morrow at:

Kristina.Morrow@usace.army.mil

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.

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 five (5) 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 5 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. The Proposal shall contain no more than five (5) projects completed within five (5) years of the solicitation issue date or currently being performed (at least 50% complete) that show experience performing facility inspections and preventative maintenance and repair in a facility or school environment of a similar dollar value, physical size, complexity and function, utilizing techniques relevant to those required by this solicitation. Please note that experience in a school environment may be considered more relevant.:

Five (5) years’ experience performing facility inspection, preventative maintenance, and facility repair Experience in school facility inspection and maintenance is considered more relevant Experience working in Germany and Belgium are more relevant than projects performed in other European Union countries Experience working in the EU is considered more relevant than projects performed outside the EU.

Projects with a cost between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 per year

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

3. 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: TRANSITION PLAN / MANAGEMENT APPROACH

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.

There is a limit of thirty (30) 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 30 pages are submitted, only the first 30 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart, letters of commitment, tabs, and tables of contents are not considered part of the 30 pages. The Organizational Chart may be on a larger size paper (not to exceed A3 or executive size). 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, and any other key personnel the offeror deems necessary for successful completion 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. Any personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government shall be clearly identified and must be able to communicate in English.

2. The narrative description clearly displays the planned organization structure, that 1) reflects the organizational chart, 2) includes clearly identifying prime contractor versus subcontractor positions and 3) the locations of those positions 4) identifies the Program Manager by name, and 5) identifies the logical distribution of key personnel.

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

Note: For the position of program manager, a resume must be submitted demonstrating a minimum of five (5) years’ experience in managing a preventative maintenance program of the same magnitude and complexity. The resume may not exceed two (2) pages. If the program manager is not currently employed by the offeror, a letter of commitment must be signed and submitted with the Factor 2. The program manager position must be filled by a full time employee of the prime contractor, directly hired by the prime contractor. The prime contractor may have additional positions filled by its employees but the program manager position listed herein is the minimum acceptable.

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

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

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements:

If available, Offerors shall submit a final, completed record from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). An interim CPARs record will be considered as long as the minimum requirements have been met regarding recency, substantial completion, and overall relevancy. If no completed CPARS records exist, the Offeror shall complete and submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (reference where PPQ is located as attachment A3PastPerformanceClientForm in solicitation). PPQ INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror shall complete blocks 1-4 of the PPQ and have the Client, Contracting Activity and/or the Technical Representative responsible for the project complete the remainder. The Offeror shall ensure that correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit the first page of the PPQ with their proposal, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow up with client references to ensure timely submittal of PPQs. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, 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 scuh 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 4: PRICE

1. Pricing information for DoDEA-E GE/BE PMC EAST, and DoDEA-E GE/BE PMC WEST shall be contained and addressed ONLY in the Price Volume.

2. Offeror’s shall complete the Price Schedule attachment for the two task order CLINs, in full, and the 45 day transition period CLIN.

3. Proposed prices shall be submitted based on the following information:

a. Line 0001; Not Seperately Priced (NSP); 45 day transition period.

b. Line 1001: Routine Services; Firm Fixed Price for a (6) six month period of performance (IE: all performance requirements in the statement of work with the exception of emergency work orders performed over the €5,000 threshold).

Individual pricing (per month) for each location, shall be provided on the Price Schedule (attachment 6a for West District and 7a for East District). Transition costs for a 45 day transition period will also be included in this CLIN.

Additionally, attachment 8 shall be completed for any potential future task orders.

c. Line 1002: CPFF price for all emergency repairs between €5,000 and €10,000 per work order. For proposal purposes, this CLIN shall have a ceiling price of €50,000 for the West District and €250,000 for the East District. Offerors shall provide pricing for only the Fixed Fee on these CLINs.

d. Line 1003: Contractor Manpower Reporting Requirement (Firm Fixed Price): In accordance with AFARS 5137.91.

4. The name, addresses, telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), and e-mail address(es) of the point(s) of contact with the authority to legally bind the Offeror.

5. The name, address, DUNS, CAGE, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

Note: Offerors must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) formerly known as the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system prior to receiving an award. If submitting as a joint venture, the joint venture entity must be registered in SAM prior to receiving an award.

Factor Four (4) – Price

1. The Government will evaluate the overall price of contractor’s price proposal to ensure price offered is fair and reasonable by conducting price analysis in accordance with FAR

15.404. The analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404 shall be used, singly or in combination with others to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable based on the Contracting Officer’s discretion. Proposed price/cost will not be adjectively rated. The TEP will be the total of CLIN 1001; the fixed fee of 1002; and 1003 for both task orders. CLIN 0001 shall be evaluated to ensure the price is fair & reasonable, however it will not be part of the TEP. Fixed Fee will also be evaluated in accordance FAR 15.404-4; DFARS

NOTE: Failure to submit a price and/or failure to complete all CLINs of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

Additional Information:

This contract will be a Fixed-Priced contract with CPFF CLINs for emergency repairs that exceeds the established €5,000 emergency repair threshold. The ordering period for the base contract will be a twelve month initial ordering period, with four, twelve (12) month options, for a potential total of 60 months. At the task order level, no additional sums will be payable due to any escalation in the cost of labor, materials, or equipment under the FFP CLINs. The awardee’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.

All questions must be submitted by 14:00 CET on 18 April 2018 via ProjNet.

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. As noted below, offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation.

To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self- register into system.

The Solicitation Number is:

The Bidder Inquiry Key is:

W912GB‐18‐R‐0003

UH69CU‐F3PFDG

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret

Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your

Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry.

Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

NOTES:

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form 30. In the case of any conflicts, the solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary.

3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds will be disabled five (5) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.

No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within two (2) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M) 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 the subject 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.

Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and, as 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, consists of the evaluation of four (4) factors: Experience, Transition Plan/Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price.

The relative weight of the evaluation factors is as follows: Factor 1, Experience is significantly more important than Factor 2, Transition Plan/Management Approach; Factor 2,Transition Plan/Management Approach is significantly more important than Factor 3, Past Performance;

Factor 3, Past Performance; when combined, the three non-price factors are significantly more important than Factor 4, Price.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are 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 – Transition Plan / Management Approach Factor 3 – Past Performance 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.

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor 1: Experience:

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

a. Experience working in Germany and Belgium is more relevant than projects performed in other European Union countries.

b. Experience working in the EU is considered more relevant than projects performed outside the EU.

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

d. Projects with a cost of $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. Offerors may submit higher valued projects if there is a performance work statement with a measurable performance period and measureable monetary value within a larger project that is relevant to this procurement. Offerors shall clearly describe this project and how it related to the overall contract. Projects outside the relevant range may be considered less relevant. Smaller projects bundled into a larger project in order to meet this cost element are not considered relevant.

2. Projects considered relevant shall be completed within the last five (5) years from the date of the solicitation or at least 50% complete by the date of this solicitation; performed in Germany and Belgium and/or; between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000; and include the following:

a. Facility Inspections

b. Preventative Maintenance

c. Facility Maintenance

d. Facility Repair

Offerors demonstrating experience with multiple projects in multiple disciplines are considered more relevant. Projects older than 5 years may be considered but will be considered less relevant.

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

Table 1 – Combined Technical/ Risk 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.

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be assessed according to the following guidelines:

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: Transition Plan/Management Approach:

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will 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 graph and the narrative description clearly displays the planned organization structure to include clearly identifying prime contractor versus subcontractor positions and where those positions are located, identifying the Program Manager by name, and identifying the logical distribution of key personnel.

3. Whether there is a 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.

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

5. Whether there is a reasonable approach to distribution of key personnel required to manage an annual workload of $5,000,000 for task orders awarded at different locations.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 2: TRANSITION PLAN/MANAGEMENT APPROACH are listed and defined below:

Table 1A – Combined Technical/ Risk 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.

Table 1B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule 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 3: 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 5 years from the date of this solicitation or currently ongoing (at least 50% complete).

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or 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.

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

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

a. The relevance of the past performance;

b. how recently the project submitted was performed;

c. trends in the Offeror’s performance;

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

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

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

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the

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

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Volume II: Price Proposal

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Evaluation Criteria:

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices for the two initial task orders. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

Completeness -To be complete, the Offeror shall provide pricing for all items included on the task orders price schedules. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed pricing complies with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. Price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price may include, but is not limited to, the following:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies…