B.08.02 W912GB21R0014-0001.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

Solicitation W912GB21R0014 is hereby amended as follow s:

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Mar-2021

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 W912GB21R0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Mar-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Mar-2021

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:

W912GB21R0014

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:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Solicitation W912GB21R0014 is hereby amended as follows:

a. Clause 52.225‐4002 Anti‐Mafia Law Italy is hereby added.

b. Clause 252.229‐7001 has been updated.

c. Section L is deleted and replaced in its entirety.

d. The proposal due date is extended to 16 April 2021 at 10:00 AM Central European Time.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Apr-2021 10:00 AM to 16-Apr-2021 10:00 AM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by full text:

52.225-4002 Anti- Mafia Law Italy (2015)

1. Pre-Award Effect of Anti-Mafia Procedures:

Inasmuch as the work of this solicitation is to be performed on land owned by the Italian State, the prospective contractor will be subject to all Italian legislation concerning anti-mafia documentation, including, without limitation: Legislative Decree no. 159 of September 6, 2011, Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252 of June 3, 1998, Legislative Decree no. 490 of August 8, 1994, Law Decree No. 629 of September 6, 1982, and any subsequent anti-mafia laws, integrations and amendments. Only firms that submit the requested documentation will be considered for award. In the event that prior to award any mafia infiltration attempt is determined by the competent Prefect (Prefetto) against an offeror, pursuant to Art. 4 of Legislative Decree no. 490/1994, Art. 10 of Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, no award will be made to said offeror. Furthermore, in the event that priorto award any additional information against an offeror is obtained and validated by the government or provided by the competent Prefect (Prefetto) pursuant to Art. 1, Section 7 of Law decree 629/1982, Art. 10, paragraph 9, of Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, the Government may decide, at its sole discretion, that no award will be made to said offeror.

2. Subcontractors:

ALSO, the Offeror is responsible for complying with Italian Anti-Mafia laws with respect to its subcontractors; and, if necessary, requesting additional information regarding attempts of mafia infiltration from a competent Prefect (Prefetto). The Offeror agrees to provide the Government any appropriate documentation that may indicate mafia-collusion, to include, if available, results of any Prefect (Prefetto) investigations. If after award, a competent Prefect (Prefetto) determines that mafia infiltration attempts have occurred with a subcontractor, then the Offeror agrees, if requested by the Government, to promptly terminate the subject subcontract and replace the mafia-colluded subcontractor at its own cost with a compliant company.

3. Termination:

If during the life of this contract, any mafia infiltration attempt is determined by the Government to have occurred or additional information is provided by the Prefect (Prefetto) against any component of the Contractor or any Subcontractor, pursuant to Art. 1, Section 7 of Law Decree 629/1982, Art 4 of Legislative Decree no. 490/1994, Art.

10 of Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, the Government at its sole discretion may consider this a failure to execute the work and may terminate the contractor's right to proceed with the work under the "Default" clause of this contract.

4. Documentation Requirements: Contractor shall submit the following:

The offeror SHALL include a “self-declaration” in accordance with DPR 445/2000, stating that “pursuant to any applicable anti-mafia law in force, none of the causes of forfeiture, suspension or prohibition set forth by Art. 67 of the Code exist with regard to all the persons involved in the subject contract.”

This documentation is to be included in your Price Proposal.

(End of Clause)

The following have been modified:

252.229-7001 TAX RELIEF (APR 2020)

(a) Prices set forth in this contract are exclusive of all taxes and duties from which the United States Government is exempt by virtue of tax agreements between the United States Government and the Contractor's government. The following taxes or duties have been excluded from the contract price:

Value Added Tax:

Germany – 19% Belgium – 21% Netherlands – 21% Luxembourg – 17% Italy – 22% Israel – 16%

(b) Invoices submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract shall be exclusive of all taxes or duties for which relief is available. The Contractor's invoice shall list separately the gross price, amount of tax deducted, and net price charged.

(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 that relief from import duties is obtained. If the Contractor intends to use imported products from inventories on hand, the price of which includes a factor for import duties, the Contractor shall ensure the United States Government's exemption from these taxes. The Contractor may obtain a refund of the import duties from its government or request the duty-free import of an amount of supplies or components corresponding to that used from inventory for this contract.

(End of clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL & EVAL

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

1. Overview

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select up to five (5) contractors to establish IDIQ

MATOC for Environmental Compliance and Hazardous Material/Waste Management Support Services primarily in Western Europe. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a target of three (3) and up to five (5) firm fixed price IDIQ contracts to the responsible offerors, whose proposals conform with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposals are determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer or to reject all offers.

1.2 The anticipated work under the MATOCs will include a wide range of environmental services that are fundamentally for environmental compliance and hazardous materials/hazardous waste management support efforts. Refer to the PWS for a more detailed list, primary efforts are summarized below.

Compliance Management Efforts which primarily includes efforts such as:

(i) Environmental Management System Compliance,

(ii) Environmental Performance Assessments,

(iii) Environmental Site Assessments, and

(iv) Management Plan Updates.

Hazardous Materials & Hazardous Waste Management, including efforts such as:

(v) Hazardous and Solid Waste Management,

(vi) Hazardous Materials Management System (HMMS) support,

(vii) Hazardous Material Reuse Center Operation or their equivalent, and

(viii) Site investigations, sampling and analysis.

2. Submittal of Offers

2.1 INTRODUCTION: Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance, and management approach necessary for successful completion of the projects envisioned under this MATOC. Requirements stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums.

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will made available for viewing at the beta.sam.gov Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (https://beta.sam.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in beta.sam.

It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

2.3 INQUIRIES: Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries in writing via

“Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. The bidder inquiry key is 2ER2B3-J2PBH9. The government reserves the right to decline addressing certain questions. Further, no questions, unless in the government’s interest, will be answered any later than ten (10) business days prior to the stated deadline for offers. All Offerors are encouraged to register on ProjNet for alerts so as to stay abreast of Q&A’s that are posted in reference to this solicitation. Only self-registered users on ProjNet can submit & review inquiries. To self-register, go to the webpage, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter the key for this solicitation listed above and your email address. After initial login, enter all the required information to create your user ID. Verify the information on the next screen and from there you may submit and view inquiries. Those submitting inquiries will receive a system generated email notification when their inquiry has been processed and answered. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor for inquiries and responses.

2.4 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

a. Electronic Proposals. 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. Electronic submissions shall be via DoD SAFE Drop-Off at https://safe.apps.mil/. Offerors will need to “Request a Drop-off” and obtain a “Request Code” from the Contract Specialist in order to submit proposals. A drop-off request is valid for 14 days. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt. In the event of technical difficulties, submission of proposals may be via email to both the Contract Specialist, SFC Temblador, at eliud.temblador@usace.army.mil and the Contracting Officer, Chris Brackett, at christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt.

b. File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised that the file size limitation is 10MB due to email server restrictions. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections and deliver in separate emails. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

c. 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) “Firmname W912GB21R0014 RESPONSE Volume I Past Performance.pdf”

(2) “Firmname W912GB21R0014 RESPONSE Volume I Management Approach”

(3) “Firmname W912GB21R0014 RESPONSE Volume II.pdf”

d. 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 10 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. 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. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. 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.

e. Submission & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the delivery time & date recorded of email receipt on the Government’s server. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously.

Offerors should time their submission with prudence by not waiting until the last day—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the delivery and/or read confirmation for their record but shall also request confirmation. Submission of proposals after the deadline will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt.

f. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

SPECIAL NOTICE: System for Award Management. Please take notice that the System for Award Management (SAM, www.sam.gov) requires that firms submit an "original, signed notarized letter identifying the authorized Entity Administrator for the entity associated with the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number before the registration will be activated." This applies to all new entity registrations and all entity registration renewals, effective 29 April 2018. Further information behind this new requirement is posted to the General Services Administration's (GSA) announcement page at https://www.gsa.gov/samupdate. Please also refer to Federal Service Desk's (FSD) instructions on how to comply with this new requirement. NOTE: the instructions are different for domestic (U.S. based) and international (not U.S. based) firms. Offerors are reminded that this Solicitation includes the provision FAR 52.204-7 SAM or FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, and the resulting award will include the clause FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance or 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions--Commercial Items. These provisions/clauses require all contractors to register and maintain an active SAM entity registration in order to be eligible for contract awards, as prescribed by the regulation at FAR Subpart 4.11. In order to eligible for the contract award resulting from this Solicitation, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office. Instructions for domestic entities (located in the U.S. or its outlying areas): https://fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=d2e67885db0d5f00b3257d321f96194b&sysparm_search= kb0013183. Instructions for international entities (not located in the U.S. or its outlying areas): https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=dbf8053adb119344d71272131f961946&sysparm_search=

KB0013221

TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.). The proposal must also include an agreement that has been executed 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. NOTE: For the purposes of evaluation under this RFP, if one of the parties in a teaming arrangement 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 entire teaming arrangement.

a. JVs. If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a fully executed 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 earlier in this section.

b. 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, 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 affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

c. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g., if an

Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team.

Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default.

There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals.

Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is Best Value Trade-Off, as stated in paragraph 1.3 above.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 & 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II –Management Approach will be rated using Table 3 below.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the

Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All non-price evaluation factors (Factors I, and II), when combined, are considered approximately equal to price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government. NOTE: A proposal that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor II is unawardable.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach 2nd

4.4 Volume II – Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Not Rated

Price Breakout Schedule

Tab B Joint Venture and Teaming Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding Not Rated and Proof of Financial Ability Not Rated

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings:

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

Table 1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description 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.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Table 2 Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Table 3 Technical Assessment Ratings

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.

4.6 Definitions:

1. 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.

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

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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.

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

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

6. 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. 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 “PPIRS” or “FAPIIS.”

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to eight (8) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar in size and scope to the projects anticipated under this MATOC. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single-sided, single-spaced, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the PROJECT DESCRIPTION portion of this Factor. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be reviewed or evaluated by the SSEB.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size shall be between $35,000 and $400,000.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall be include any of the following services:

Compliance Management Efforts which primarily includes efforts such as:

(i) Environmental Management System Compliance,

(ii) Environmental Performance Assessments,

(iii) Environmental Site Assessments, and

(iv) Management Plan Updates.

Hazardous Materials & Hazardous Waste Management, including efforts such as:

(v) Hazardous and Solid Waste Management,

(vi) Hazardous Materials Management System (HMMS) support,

(vii) Hazardous Material Reuse Center Operation or their equivalent, and

(viii) Site investigations, sampling and analysis.

5.1.4 Additional consideration may be given for projects which contain the following features:

a) Projects for USACE or U.S. Government.

b) Projects that demonstrate a working relationship with experienced subcontractors.

c) Projects that were performed within Host Nation regulations for countries within the European Union.

5.1.5 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b) When the project was or will be completed. If project is not yet complete, provide a description of work remaining to be completed.

c) Description of the scope of the project.

d) Size of the project

e) Role of firm; provide a description of type of work performed by the Offeror

f) Dollar/Euro value of the project.

h) Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address).

5.1.6 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance

Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective action.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 15 of the Standard Form 144233. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, key subcontractors, , and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless the proposal includes signed letter of commitment with these contractors. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier number with the JV proposal. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed five (8).

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size and magnitude of effort, and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Table 1), above.

5.2.2 The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment (Table 2) above. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Management Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a management approach narrative that addresses the following:

a. One (1) organizational chart and a narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative must:

identify all offices involved in this contract identify position(s) to communicate with the U.S. government identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location, including subcontractors and consultants include lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract

b. Discuss the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this RFP, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. Identify the significant aspects of the work that are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted.

c. A plan for the performance and management of EIGHT concurrent task orders in

Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands valued between $35,000 and $400,000.

The plan should also address management under the potential condition of managing a higher number of concurrent task orders (e.g. 15).

d. Discussion on how task orders and efforts in other European countries, Africa and Israel would be performed and managed.

e. The Offeror’s quality management system, safety system, schedule, and intended staffing plan to execute the work and should explain how this plan will ensure the successful execution of the project.

f. A comprehensive description of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the key personnel, including roles of authority for subcontractors and JVs. Describe the ability to staff multiple disciplines on-site for extended periods of time, depth of reach back support to resolve issues within 24-hours, and staffing capability in each of the locations for this PWS.

g. Qualifications of the Program Manager(s), who is/are expected to be the point of contact(s) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers throughout the duration of the MATOC. Should clearly discuss education, special qualifications and experience record showing title, specific duties, responsibilities and assignments within the last five years.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) single-sided, single-spaced, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the management plan narrative portion of this Factor. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be reviewed or evaluated by the SSEB.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement and ability to successfully manage multiple concurrent task orders in Western Europe, focused in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, along with understanding and ability to also manage task orders elsewhere in Europe, Africa and Israel. The Offeror’s Management Approach will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution. The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic. The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the management plan:

i. Clearly defines the planned organization structure and presents a logical, viable approach to perform the work described in the RFP documents and achieve the desired quality.

ii. Delineates lines of authority appropriately including the relationship between the headquarters’ office and the site office, including all involved with the management of the contract including subcontractors and JV partners (where applicable) and identifies which personnel are identified to communicate with the Government.

iii. Comprehensively describes the duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and JVs.

iv. Describes management for performance of potential task orders simultaneously including Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

Quality control, Obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors, and Understanding of USACE and host nation regulations.

v. Proposed Program Manager’s ability to manage the requirements under this

MATOC.

7. Volume II – Price and Pro Forma Information (Submit in a separate envelope).

7.1 Tab A: Standard Form 1442 33 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Schedule A – Discipline Rate spreadsheet, and completed bid schedules for the two (2) “seed” projects.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will not be rated. For purposes of the base MATOC contract evaluation, price will be evaluated on base proposal plus all options. The total evaluated price will be determined by multiplying the hourly rate proposed for each discipline by the estimated number of hours for the entire MATOC found in the Schedule A, and then adding the total estimated prices for all disciplines together. The total evaluated price and the proposed rates will be evaluated by the SSEB and the Contracting Officer/SSA for fair and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

The pricing for the “seed” projects will not be considered in the evaluation of the base contract awards. The basis of award for the two seed projects will be low price. Offerors shall submit completed bid schedules for both projects. Offerors must receive one of the base MATOC awards in order to be considered for the task orders.

7.2 Tab B: Joint Venture and Teaming Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

(i) JV agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their JV agreement in English, signed by all parties of the JV.

(2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

(a) The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

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

(ii) Other formal teaming agreements shall include the following:

(1) A copy of their teaming agreement in English, signed by all parties of the team.

7.3 Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding & Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, bank name, and POC, etc.)

7.4 Tab D: Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section SAM registration with comleted 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for each joint venture member.

C. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and Unique Entity Identifier for any and all key subcontractors identified in the proposal.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity Identifier:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture

Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE

OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH

THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements.