Amendment 0004.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

W912GB20R0010 Germany East JOC- Amendment 04

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

a) Update Section 00 22 00- Evaluation factors Section C, Factor 2- Past Performance Relevancy to include Belgium and the Netherlands.

b) Re-submit Attachment 2B Experience Info Sheet to BetaSam.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Jun-2020

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 W912GB20R0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Apr-2020

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 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

02-Jun-2020

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:

W912GB20R0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by full text:

Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Factors

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, and 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 award will be made to the Offeror 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” or "Neutral Confidence" must be achieved for all non-price factors.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The SSEB will evaluate proposals according to 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 for each factor is set forth under the EVALUATION APPROACH paragraph below. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph of the solicitation Section 00 21 00.

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 – Management and Technical Approach Factor 2 –Past Performance

2. Price Factor: 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.

Factor 3 – Price - Unit Price Book (UPB) Coefficients

3. Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 2 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 1 (Management and Technical Approach). All non-price factors (Factors 1-2), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 3).

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SSEB.

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.”

(FAPIIS).

2. 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. The Offeror may be credited with the experience, expertise and/or past performance of a JV member, a team member, a subcontractor, or an affiliate (collectively referred to in this RFP as “Team Members”) if relates to the services described for that party in the team arrangement agreement or the letter of commitment.

Consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government also may consider the responsibility of such entities or persons when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. In the event that the Offeror is awarded the resultant contract, there can be no substitution of any proposed team member, subcontractor, or key personnel identified in a teaming agreement or letter of commitment without prior written approval of the contracting officer. Approval or disapproval of a substitute entity or person is a matter within the sole discretion of the contracting officer, who will consider factors such as whether the proposed substitute appears to be equally qualified and whether the substitution is the best interests of the Government and project execution. In approving a substitution, the contracting officer may impose such conditions on the substitution as he/she deems appropriate in the exercise of his/her sole discretion. Further information about Teaming Arrangement requirements is provided in section 00 21 00 (A)(4)(a).

a. Teaming Agreements. 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 a fully executed agreement 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. Further details on the requirements of teaming agreements are provided in section 00 21 00(A)(4)(a).

b. 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. For the JV arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must clearly address the experience of each JV member and the relationship of the members on any ongoing or previous projects. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided in Section 00 21 00, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS.

c. Key Subcontractor Commitment Letters. For a prime-subcontractor arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must have a commitment letter signed by both the prime and the subcontractor that includes the substantive portions of the sample provided in Attachment 7. The agreement must also 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. For a prime-subcontractor arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must have a commitment letter signed by both the prime and the subcontractor that includes the substantive portions of the sample provided in Attachment 7.

d. Affiliates. The term “affiliate” is defined in FAR 2.101. For an affiliate’s relevant experience and past performance to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, the proposal must demonstrate 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, 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.

e. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the experience and/or past performance of any affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

3. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS. Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation

Factor 1 –: The adjectival rating for Management Approach and Technical Approach are listed and defined below:

NON-PRICE FACTOR 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 Un-acceptable 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:

NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

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.

Unaccept able

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

Factor 2: The adjectival ratings for Past Performance are listed and defined below:

PAST PERFORMANCE 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, location, 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.

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.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

4. Non Price Factors: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

a) Factor 1, Management and Technical Approach. Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s management and technical approach as specified in Section 00 21 00 is logical, feasible, and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of managing the contract. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

i. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the Government, on the organizational chart organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices involved with the management of the contract, including Key Subcontractors and JV partners.

ii. The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of multiple projects within the geographic scope of this contract that illustrates a detailed understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontracting and staffing plans.

b) Factor 2, Past Performance. For this Factor, the SSEB will evaluate the relevancy and quality of the Offeror’s past performance and will assess a confidence level on how likely the Offeror will be successful on the work under this Solicitation. The relevancy and likelihood of success will be evaluated based on the Offeror's performance on projects submitted for evaluation by the Offeror as well as other projects not submitted by the Offeror, to include the past performance information from other sources available to the SSEB, and past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners specified in the Offeror’s proposal. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under the experience portion of Factor 2, but the Government reserves the right to review all recent past performance records available to make a confidence determination to include other projects not submitted by the Offeror. The Government also reserves the right to review past performance of any Team Members.

(1) Past Performance Relevancy. The SSEB may consider projects more relevant if they consist of the following (listed in no particular order). Projects completed more than six (6) years before the proposal due date and/or not meeting these criteria may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the Offeror’s overall relevancy rating:

(1) Projects that demonstrate experience working in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

(2) Projects that demonstrate experience working on US Army Garrisons.

(3) Projects involving multiple trades.

(4) Projects demonstrating experience working with proposed Key

Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners

(5) Projects with a cost of €50,000 to €5,000,000.

Offerors are cautioned that the SSEB may assess weaknesses against experience examples that demonstrate a significant lack of experience in one or more of the criteria listed above, that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project. Furthermore, completed PPQs, especially those with a supporting narrative that explains the basis for the ratings, may be considered more favorably than those that are not completed by the client or those that lack any rationale for the ratings provided. Finally, if the Offeror is proposing with a Team Member, projects involving the same team will be given the most consideration. Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those contractors are part of a Teaming Arrangement in compliance with section C.2 above.

(2) Performance Confidence Assessment. Once evaluation of all of the above information is completed, each Offeror shall be assigned a confidence rating based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects. The Government may verify information provided by the Offeror with any source available and has the right to contact points of contact other than those listed by the Offeror.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members

(partnership, joint venture, 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. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or committed subcontractors performing key elements of the project. Note:

An Offeror assessed at a neutral confidence level may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). However, during source selection or any competitive range determination process, Offerors whose proposals receive a satisfactory confidence or substantial confidence rating for this factor may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a neutral confidence rating.

5. Price Factor: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume II, “Price Proposal and Administrative Matters.” Price will not be rated, but will be considered in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination of best value. The Government will perform price analysis on all proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work.

a. Factor 3 Price. Unit Price Book (UPB) Coefficients. Offerors are required to price for all items for the base and all option ordering periods. See the solicitation Section 01 11 00 for a definition of UPB Coefficients. From a price perspective, an offer’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together. 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.

b. Prices proposed will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)