A.07.24_W912GB19R0009-0001.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

Please see the continuation page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Dec-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 W912GB19R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Dec-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 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

21-Dec-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:

W912GB19R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is to update Sections L and M and add STR 52.000-4074 TAX RELIEF (FOREIGN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN GERMANY) to Section I.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by full text:

STR 52.000-4074 TAX RELIEF (FOREIGN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN GERMANY)

(a) Prices contained in this contract are exclusive of all taxes and duties from which the U.S. Government is exempt by virtue of any tax agreements between the United States Government and the Contractor's Government. The following taxes and duties have been excluded from the contract prices:

NAME OF TAX PERCENTAGE

Enter calculated VAT from basic contract amount.

Value Added Tax % IT

(b) The Contractor's invoice shall separately list the gross price, amount of the tax deducted, and the net price changes.

(c ) When items manufactured to United States Government specifications are being acquired, the Contractor shall identify the materials or components intended to be imported in order to ensure relief from import duties are obtained. If the Contractor intends to use imported products from inventories on hand, the price of which included a factor for import duties, arrangements will be made to pay a refund to the Contractor by its government;

by the duty free import of a corresponding amount of supplies or components used from inventory; or otherwise, to ensure the exemption of the United States Government from these taxes.

(End of Clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted digitally in ENGLISH. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The Volumes are:

Volume I NON-PRICE FACTORS – Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Management

Approach Volume II PRICE FACTOR – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and

Certifications/Representations, JV Agreements, Letters of Commitment and Price (SECTION B).

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experience. 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. The proposal shall be easy to read.

b. The Proposal shall be organized, clear, and concise.

c. Offerors shall verify the information for all forms submitted is current, correct and complete including names of the points-of-contact, email address(es), and telephone number(s).

d. 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.

e. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals.

f. Proposal Expenses and Pre-contract Costs: The Government will not compensate

Offerors for proposal expenses or any other pre-contract costs.

g. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required, 12-point minimum font size applies. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point and may be landscape. Each side of the paper is considered one page; however, A3 of 11”x17” sized paper shall be considered two pages.

h. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME TITLE DIGITAL COPIES MAXIMUM PAGES

I – Non-Price 1 See Below II – Price 1 See Below

2. SENDING IN THE PROPOSAL

In an effort to reduce paperwork and costs, ALL RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized. Email submission is not authorized. ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS

REQUIRED THROUGH THE FEDBIZOPPS (FBO.GOV) “ELECTRONIC RESPONSE”

FEATURE. The FBO vendor user guide has information & instructions on how to utilize this feature. The FBO vendor user guide is accessible via the following web URL:

https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf.

File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the FBO instructions for uploading files larger than 10MB (java upload). FBO has not posted official file size limitations for its electronic response module, however it has been observed that uploads to FBO tend to be problematic when the files are sized 100MB or greater. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

1. W912GB19R0009 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf

2. W912GB19R0009 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II.pdf

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 12 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

Upload Completion & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within FBO. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting.

Proposal submission difficulties should be coordinated with the Federal Service Desk at https://fsd.gov and/or +1-866-606-8220 (Mon-Fri 8am-8pm Eastern Time UTC -5:00).

Experience shows that if an upload doesn’t complete until after the deadline, the FBO system WILL NOT COMPLETE. The FBO system will automatically shut off the “Electronic Submission” feature at the specified deadline--once that occurs, the feature will disappear from the announcement. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record.

Submissions after the deadline may be emailed to Ryan Gregory, Contract Specialist (Ryan.K.Gregory@usace.army.mil), but be advised they will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

Format: The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the footer.

a. Volume I NON-PRICE: shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page: the volume and page number. A3 or 11”x17” size paper shall be considered 2 pages. Each side of paper is considered one page. Table of contents do not count against the total page count.

b. Volume I NON-PRICE: shall contain a cover letter in accordance with and FAR 52.215- 1 (c) (2) including Solicitation Number; name, address, telephone and email address of the Offeror; in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), the name of the JV MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED; Name, title, and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal; DUNS Number and CAGE or NCAGE Code of the Offeror, in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), provide a DUNS Number for each member of the

JV.

File Packaging: Files shall be in word searchable format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel.

Submission Requirements by Factor: All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents and the narrative discussion.

4. VOLUME I

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

a. FACTOR 1: Technical Approach The Government requires that the Offeror provide the following for Factor 1, Technical Approach:

1. Offerors shall submit their proposed technical approach to achieve all necessary tasks covered in the PWS. There are overlapping tasks that may be covered under one technical approach section for the proposal. At a minimum, the Offeror shall include their technical approach to conduct recurring maintenance and minor repair work for a one year time frame to cover all of the Air Force Installations and all other tasks specified in the PWS.

The methodology shall state at a minimum:

a. Typical number of people per team

b. Make up of teams by trade

c. Tools, equipment, special equipment requirements

d. Approach to emergency service orders

e. Cost effectiveness in accomplishing tasks

f. Safety processes

g. Knowledge of regulatory requirements and constraints

h. The approach utilized to accept, track, and complete minor repair service orders.

i. The processes that will be utilized to manage, track, and execute both firm fixed prices and cost reimbursable aspects of the PWS.

2. The narrative must explain how the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with the

PWS.

a. The narrative shall specify the technical aspects that will be conducted by the prime and subcontractor efforts.

b. FACTOR 2: Management Approach

The Government requires that the Offeror provide a narrative supporting documentation as specified in Section M, Factor 2: Management Approach. Key elements of the proposal shall include:

1. A brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation.

2. Lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, subcontractors, and the Government shown on an Organizational Chart.

3. Transition/Startup Plan: The plan should show how the Contractor will be ready to start work in accordance with the required contractual start date and beginning field operations. Specifically address:

a. Schedule

a. Hiring Personnel

b. Plan for inventorying equipment and validating information

c. Becoming familiar with the facilities

d. Paperwork and Contract Document requirements

4. Identification of difficulties, uncertainties, and risks

5. Process for responding to service calls

6. Process and ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the PWS.

7. Identification of required key personnel and qualifications in accordance with the PWS.

8. Draft Project Schedule for all Firm Fixed Price tasks that fall under the PWS for the first year of the contract.

c. FACTOR 3: Past Performance The Government requires that the Offeror submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five

(5) relevant projects completed within the last five (5) years or current projects at least 85 percent (85%) complete in the form of Experience Information Sheets for Factor 3. The projects submitted shall demonstrate their experience completing contracts of a similar size, scope, and complexity and shall be directly relevant to the work requirements detailed in the PWS in this solicitation package. Additional details on the submittal requirements for Factor 3 and the evaluation criteria on how the Contractor will be evaluated is included in Section M of this solicitation.

A project is defined as a work performed pursuant to one specific contract at one facility or multiple facilities at a single installation, or work performed at one facility or multiple facilities at multiple installations.

If no previous work experience with the US Government can be shown, this alone will not disqualify a contractor from consideration. More weight will be given to previous experience shown that is directly relatable to work, Country and Installations covered under this PWS.

Projects submitted must have been executed by the offeror and its team members as either prime Contractor or subcontractor. If a Key subcontractor or Joint Venture is submitted for evaluation purposes, project examples that demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or Joint Venture Partners are considered more relevant. Project examples that do not demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or Joint Venture Partners are considered less relevant.

At a minimum, all submitted projects shall include:

1. The project name and location. Include the City, Country, State, or military installation name as appropriate.

2. The name of the contractor that performed and the role in this proposal (prime offeror, JV partner or team subcontractor).

3. Client organization name and address of where the work was performed. Include name and telephone number of the Client’s point of contact.

4. Contract number under which the company performed the work. Include the task order number for work done under an indefinite delivery type contract.

5. The type of contract under which the work was performed (firm fixed price, cost reimbursable, time and materials, etc.).

6. The total contract obligation amount including all modifications, award date of original contract, and contract period of performance.

7. Key subcontractors utilized on proposed project.

8. The percentage of the contract amount performed by the prime offeror, JV partner, or team subcontractors.

9. A brief site description and an overview of the Contractor’s work performed on the project as it relates to the work described in Section C. Dates should be indicted for when the work was performed for the work that is being described.

10. Describe the experience on this project that demonstrates the criteria in Section M that the Government has identified for additional consideration. See Section M for evaluation criteria.

11. Identify project challenges and risks, describe how your company approached and addressed these challenges and risks. Include important project characteristics such as site restrictions, cost and schedule constraints, customer and stakeholder constraints, health and safety, any other unique considerations and performance challenges associated with the project.

A sample Experience Information Sheet will be attached as Appendix B for reference. The format of the Experience Information Sheet is only a guide and may be adjusted to fit the Offeror’s proposal format. The details of the information are required, not the format.

In addition to the Experience Information Sheets, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations shall be provided for each project submitted under this Factor 3. For each project submitted in Factor 3, use one (1) of the following formats to demonstrate past performance:

a. Offerors may submit CPARS evaluations.

OR

b. If no CPARS evaluation exists, the Offeror may submit a PPQ. PPQs –Appendix C, AF/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire, in Section J of the solicitation--- is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The Client/Evaluator shall submit the completed PPQs directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mr. Ryan Gregory, via e-mail at Ryan.K.Gregory@usace.army.mil, prior to proposal closing date. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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. 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. PPQ submitted directly from the Offeror will not be considered during evaluation.

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) 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), 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. If the Government cannot determine past performance information on submitted experience, the offeror will not be rated favorably or unfavorably for confidence assessment purposes.

5. VOLUME II

This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award.

A copy of the Offeror’s completed clause FAR 52.204-8 and 252.204-7007 Alt A from shall be provided as part of this volume. Offeror’s shall also include a copy of the Offeror’s current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data, “assertions”, and “POCs”. Offeror’s shall also include a copy of the Offeror’s current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.from Section K.

a. FACTOR 4: Price This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data.

1. In order to maintain a minimum level of commonality between proposals, each offeror is required to complete (in entirety) the Schedule of Items and Prices spreadsheet provided as Appendix A. The Pricing Schedule shall be provided for the base effort and each option year.

2. Proposed prices shall be submitted based on PWS Pricing (RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall) broken out as the following:

3. For Firm Fixed Price CLINS, proposed prices shall be broken out for each task per performance period into the following categories (See Worksheet B – Instructions of Appendix A, Schedule of Items and Prices:

a. Burdened Hourly Labor Rates (see template for labor category)

b. Man-Hours

c. Material, Supplies & Equipment (MSE)

d. Handling Charge/G&A Applied to MSE

e. Subcontractor costs

f. Handling Charge/G&A Applied to Subcontractor Costs

g. Profit

h. Travel

i. Handling Charge/G&A Applied to Travel

4. For Proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is JANUARY 2019.

5. Offer/Price. The offeror must submit the following:

a. Offer Form. Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, with Blocks 12 through 18 completed.

b. Schedule of Items and Prices. Solicitation Section B, Supplies or Services and

Prices, with your prices (in Euros) inserted into the appropriate spaces. The Schedule of Items and Prices will be considered complete only when all supporting worksheets (Worksheet A and Worksheets B.1-B.5) are properly completed and submitted Schedule of Items and Prices can also be found in Appendix A of this Source Selection Plan.

6. Completing Section B – Price Schedule: Offerors shall submit a completed Section B – Pricing Schedule as part of the Price Proposal Package.

a. * Failure to submit Section B – Price Schedule and failure to complete all Line Items on Section B – Price Schedule, including the base year and all options years may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

b. Mathematical Format: Proposed pricing shall be carried no further than two (2) decimal places for all Schedule of Items and Prices inputs.

The rates on the Pricing Summary Sheet (Worksheet A of Appendix A) shall be the Offerors final proposed price per task. . All rates on Worksheets B.1 – B.5, shall be broken out as instructed on Worksheet B, Instructions.

6. DEFINITION OF JOINT VENTURES

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding joint venture agreement.

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

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the experience, past performance, technical approach and management approach of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The experience for each Joint Venture Partner will be considered the experience of the Joint Venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit with Volume I 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.

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

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

4. The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All members of the Joint Venture shall sign the SF 33. Make sure to include as part of Volume II PRICE.

-- KEY SUBCONTRACTORS: If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a key subcontractor or supplier (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor part of the Joint Venture) a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor and the prime contractor shall be submitted with Volume II. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a Joint Venture Partner (for example, the Key Subcontractor is subsidiary of a Joint Venture Partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the Joint Venture partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Make sure to include as part of Volume II.

7. NOTICE

An offer may be rejected if an offeror objects to any of the terms of this RFP, including any part of the specifications. The Government plans to award a contract without discussions, so an offeror may not have an opportunity to withdraw any objections that the offeror has made, or provide any of the items of information described above, after the date and time that offers must be delivered to the Government. Therefore, the Government urges the offeror to speak to the Government POC before objecting to any of the terms of this RFP, and to submit all of the items of information described above.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Award The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

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 most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below.

VOLUME I: NON-PRICE FACTORS

FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach FACTOR 2 – Management Approach FACTOR 3 - Past Performance

VOLUME II: PRICE FACTOR

FACTOR 4 – Price

The Technical Approach factor is more important than the Past Performance Management Approach factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor. Management Approach. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Non-Price factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. ALL NON-PRICE FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN FACTOR 4, PRICE.

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

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the 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. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Rating Scale below will be used on the following non-price factors:

FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach FACTOR 2 – Management Approach FACTOR 3 - Past Performance ***See the Past Performance Evaluation Criteria below for the Rating Scales for Past Performance***

For Factors 1 and 2, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following tables, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased 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.

The adjectival ratings, defined below will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table based on Past Performance.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to conduct recurring maintenance and minor repair describing the methodology in performing the following tasks:

The degree that the proposal clearly specifies how to implement all requirements of the

PWS.

The degree that the proposal demonstrates a reasonable process and rationale for the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner, provide an adequate safety program, comply with regulatory requirements, and maintain the specific performance metrics

How the contractor will track, report and schedule service orders at both Installations concurrently, from the management standpoint and from the cost standpoint to ensure all work is conducted within the dollar threshold of the individual line item

The degree that the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the service order process from initiation to close out, to include the methodology used to respond to the service order request within time specified in the PWS; troubleshoot the deficiency; prepare the cost estimates for each individual service order; execute service order repair; perform quality control; document closeout; and invoicing

How the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with contract provisions; and

A Technical Approach that demonstrates the least risk to the operations at DoD fuel facilities.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of assigned strengths that demonstrate the criteria listed below:

Current implementation of a Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for management of maintenance and repair activities

Innovative approaches to maximize personnel efficiency or provide cost savings through reduced travel and labor when responding to SO calls, reduced system downtime, or minimizing impact to mission operations.

There is a limit of five (5) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equals two pages. If more than 5 pages are submitted, only the first 5 pages will be reviewed and evaluated.

2. FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluators will determine whether the Offerors demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. The narrative should address and contain a description of the items below, and more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater understanding via their descriptions to these items:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, responsibility and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, subcontractors, and the Government. This information should be depicted on an organizational chart organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices and key personnel involved with the management and execution of the contract. Offerors shall additionally specify the sole point of contact who is authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government.

2. Transition/Startup Plan: Whether the proposal clearly details in a logical and reasonable manner how the Contractor will approach Transition/Startup Plan at the required contractual start date and beginning of field operations.

a. Completeness of the draft schedule with enough detail that it can become the basis of the schedule

a. Addresses how and when new employees will be hired to augment personnel already employed

b. Addresses how equipment information will be inventoried and validated

c. Addresses how the Offeror will become familiar with all installations that fall under the PWS

d. Demonstrates understanding of paperwork, invoicing, and reporting requirements, to include submission timeframes

3. Whether the proposal clearly identifies difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks.

4. Whether the proposal demonstrates the ability and plan to inspect, repair, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the PWS.

5. Ability to provide key personnel that meet the qualifications in accordance with the PWS.

6. Completeness of the draft project schedule with enough detail that it can become the basis of the schedule for the period of performance of the first year of the contract.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of assigned strengths, to Offerors demonstrating of the criteria listed below:

Ability to provide a currently certified DCMA Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) compliant system that is certified by the DCMA or Reciprocity Agreement.

There is a limit of five (5) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font. If more than 5 pages are submitted, only the first 5 pages will be reviewed and evaluated.

The organization chart, draft project Schedule, and any resumes submitted, are not considered part of the 5 pages but have a maximum limit of fifteen (15) pages. The Preventative Maintenance Schedule may use a minimum of 10 pitch font. If more than fifteen (15) pages are submitted for the organization chart, preventative maintenance draft project schedule, and resumes, only the first fifteen (15) pages will be reviewed.

3. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the Government’s evaluation of past performance. The first aspect is to determine the direct relevancy to the Performance Work Statement of the submitted projects under Factor 3. The second aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and has more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 3, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce;

controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed multiple projects simultaneously and multiple disciplines of construction; easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

5. 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.

6. 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. The Offeror’s experience modification rate (EMR) shall be submitted within this factor for evaluation. The EMR is a numeric representation of the Company’s claims history and safety record as compared to other companies in the same industry. The EMR will be evaluated based on below:

This company is riskier than average (EMR > 1.0) This company is no more or no less risky than average (EMR = 1.0) This company is safer than average (EMR < 1.0)

The Offeror shall also submit a log and summaries of work-related injuries and illnesses reports.

In evaluating relevancy and determining a confidence assessment of past performance, shall also be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

a. The relevance of past performance;

b. How recent the project submitted was performed;

c. Trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. Positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

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

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

Additional Past Performance Evaluation Information:

a. Negative comments received from data gathered by the Government will not necessarily result in an adverse rating. However, negative comments from relevant past performance sources may negatively impact the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. The Government will provide the offeror the ability to address any negative or adverse past performance information received if not previously addressed.

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

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

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

For the Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Performance Relevancy Ratings:

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, performance location, period of performance, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

The Government will evaluate relevancy of Contractor’s submitted fuel systems maintenance and fuel systems repair projects based on the following:

Experience with the United States Department of Defense (DOD);

Experience in the geographical locations listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS);

Experience with DOD and Host Nation regulations;

Experience managing multiple requirements and subcontractors in different locations at the same time;

Projects valued between €50,000 and €2,500,000 per year of service. Projects submitted outside of this range may be considered less relevant.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of a higher relevancy rating, to company experience on submitted fuels systems maintenance and fuels system repair projects determined to meet the following criteria:

Project where the Offeror was the Prime Contractor on the submitted projects Project where significant fuels system maintenance and/or fuels system unscheduled maintenance has been executed within the last five (5) years Projects performed in Italy.

Project where the Prime Contractor’s contract included a Cost Plus Fixed Fee element Experience with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) recurring maintenance and minor repair program Experience with the proposed subcontracting team(s)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the…