B.08.03.01_W912GB19R0048_Amendment_0001.pdf

FY19AFRICASAPS

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

This Amendment includes the follow ing changes:

A. CLIN 0005 description has been updated.

B. Evaluation of Offerors Section C, paragraph 3, sub-bullet 3, has been corrected to state Baltics.

All other items remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Jul-2019

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 W912GB19R0048

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jul-2019

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

23-Jul-2019

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:

W912GB19R0048

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION OF OFFERORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and sub-factors below. Award will be made to an Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in communications or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without communications to Offerors, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph of the RFP Section 00 21 00.

The non-price factors are as follows:

1. NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A proposal receiving an unacceptable rating on one or more non-price factors will result in an overall unacceptable rating and be ineligible for award.

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Past Performance

2. FACTOR 3 PRICE: The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4 Contract Pricing.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS (NON-PRICE vs. PRICE): All non-price factors are of equal importance. All non-price factors, when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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 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 between/among all authorized representatives of 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 as part of the proposal submission shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided in the INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS section.

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.

c. If a Teaming Agreement or key subcontractor commitment is submitted in a proposal for purposes of evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more such team members or key subcontractor post award may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of such team members or key subcontractors or team members after award except that, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of such a subcontractor or team member with equivalent or greater capability for the subcontractor or team members identified in the proposal. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

d. Affiliates. In the case of an Offeror’s affiliates, experience and/or past performance of an Offeror’s

“affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation. This commitment and the nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the experience and/or past performance of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

2. Factor 1: Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to assess the Offeror’s perceived ability to implement all requirements of the SOW. Offeror’s proposed approach shall:

(i) Provide a Letter of Commitment and resume from a licensed professional in the Host Nation who will serve as the Designer of Record (DoR) to execute the design portion of the SoW.

(ii) Demonstrate an understanding of the trades required to perform the work including the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner; additionally, any specialized equipment required to perform the SoW

(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of and experience working in the Host Nation to include personnel requirements, laws and other potential limitations to executing the project.

(iv) Demonstrate a plan to staff the project with either in-house resources or through subcontract support, including the areas of work that will be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted.

(v) Demonstrate an understanding of the major elements of work, including the design period and critical path to construction which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to complete the work within the period of performance listed in the solicitation.

The below ratings will be used to evaluation this factor. Offerors rated as Marginal or Unacceptable will not be considered for award.

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

3. Factor 2: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s demonstrated record of experience and performance based on submitted recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation. Past Performance will be evaluated for projects completed within the last 8 years or are at least 50% complete from the date of the solicitation was posted to FBO. The below ratings will be used to evaluate this factor. Offerors rated as no confidence for this factor will not be considered for award. Offeror’s who receive an unknown confidence rating may be considered less favorably than those receiving a limited confidence or better.

For evaluation purposes the definition of a recent and relevant contract must meet each of the following conditions in no particular order.

The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor, I n the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team, the contract must have been awarded to the prime of the key-subcontractor as the prime contractor.

The contract was completed no earlier than eight calendar years before the date the solicitation was posted to FBO or are at least 50% complete from the date the solicitation was posted to FBO.

Work that is/was performed in Lithuania. Work performed in Lithuania may be considered the most relevant; work performed in the Baltics may also be considered more relevant. Work performed outside these regions will be evaluated but may be considered less relevant.

The contract is fundamentally for one or all of the following types of construction work in order of importance:

o Renovations of buildings o Replacement to include major building systems (electrical, mechanical, structural, etc) repaired or replaced o Hazardous material abatement and disposal work o Projects that demonstrate experience working in any of the European countries with projects performed in Lithuania being considered most relevant o Projects which demonstrate minor earthwork and grading o Demonstrated Design / Build experience

Offerors that demonstrate experience in multiple features of construction listed above may be considered more relevant.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

The 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.

4. Factor 3: Price. Price will be considered in making the Government’s determination of which proposal received in response to this RFP presents the best value. The Government will perform price analysis on all proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine completeness, balanced pricing, and reasonableness. Offerors are required to price for all items for the base and all options. Failure to submit a price and failure to complete all CLINs in Section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal package being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration. From a price perspective, an offer’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together. The contract price will not be adjusted on account of fluctuations in the currency exchange rates. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government estimate.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(End of Summary of Changes)