B.08.03 W912GB21R0029 Amend 0002.pdf

DC-21-0101

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

W912GB21R0029 Utility Modernization, Chievres Air Base, USAG Benelux, Belgium.

Amendment 0002 See continuation page for Amendment 0002 details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jul-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 W912GB21R0029

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Jun-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

27-Jul-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:

W912GB21R0029

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

The purposes of this Amendment 0002 are to:

1. Extend the proposal due date from 30 July 2021 at 10:00 hours Central European Summer Time (CEST) to 5 August 2021 at 10:00 hours CEST;

2. Provide the revised Price Schedule which shall be submitted with Contractor’s proposal;

3. Revise Section 00 22 16, Section A - Factor 1, Past Performance, to add the definition of substantially complete;

4. Revise Specification Sections 01 11 00, 01 22 00, and 01 78 00;

5. Revise Drawings 08_CW110 R2 and 08_CW111 R2;

6. Provide the Design Analysis; and,

7. Provide the Camera Inspection Report – Runway Crossing Ducts.

All revised documents replace their previous versions in their entirety.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 30-Jul-2021 10:00 AM to 05-Aug-2021 10:00 AM.

CLIN 0002

The CLIN description has changed from Removal of Existing Valve Boxes to Ion Exchange Treatment System.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Removal of existing valve boxes, gate valves and fittings

To:

Ion Exchange Treatment system located in the Community Support District at the Brugelette water utility connection.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN description has changed from Ion Exchange Treatment System to Wastewater Utility incl

SSFM.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Ion Exchange Treatment system located in the Community Support Districtat the Brugelette water utility connection

Wastewater utility incl SSFM with connection to municipal utility in Brugelette, and wastewater treatment storage vault (wet well).

CLIN 0004

The CLIN description has changed from Wastewater Utility incl SSFM to Removal of Existing Valve Boxes.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Wastewater utility incl SSFM with connection to municipal utility in Brugelette, and wastewater treatment storage vault (wet well)

Removal of existing valve boxes, gate valves and fittings

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph C of this section. 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 non-price Factor 1 – Past Performance is more important than non-price Factor 2 – Technical Approach, and when combined, the non-price factors are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 3).

B. PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government Source Selection Team (SST) 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. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Technical Approach

Factor 3: Price

1. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

a. Section A - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a maximum of three (3) projects substantially complete or completed within the last six (6) years (from the RFP issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (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.

“Substantially completed” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an Offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially completed,” the Offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum cost of $6,000,000.

Projects considered similar in scope will be Design-Build and/or Design-Bid- Build utilities related construction/renovation projects performed within the European Union.

Projects that contain the features below may be considered to be more relevant:

i. Projects that demonstrate work in Belgium

ii. Projects that demonstrate working with the U.S. or Belgian governments on U.S. or Belgian Host Nation military installations

iii. Projects demonstrating working with proposed key subcontractors, team members, and/or the proposed JV partners (if applicable).

Teaming Arrangements: If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a committed Subcontractor or Affiliate (i.e., sister or parent company or any firm that is not the Prime Contractor) a Letter of Commitment signed by the Committed Subcontractor or Affiliate and the Prime Contractor shall be submitted. A Letter of Commitment sample is provided as an attachment to the solicitation. The Offeror must also explain how the work performed on that project is relevant to the work the Subcontractor or Affiliate will perform under this Contract.

The Offeror should complete a Past Performance Information Sheet provided as an attachment to this RFP or a similar document for each project. Past Performance Information Sheets or a similar document shall not exceed four

(4) pages per project.

If more than three (3) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first three (3) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall include completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form. If available, a completed record from the CPARS will be accepted for evaluation under this factor. An interim completed CPARs rating will be considered if a final record is not available. If a completed CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a PPQ Form, provided as an RFP Attachment.

PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided PPQ and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ.

Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP at Ryan.S.Shoemaker@usace.army.mil and shawna.m.west@usace.army.mil.

Also include copies of performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards and/or award fee determinations. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by mailto:Ryan.S.Shoemaker@usace.army.mil the Offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

NOTE: Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order rather than the base contract.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to the Submission Requirements paragraph above. By using the criteria above, the Government 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 below.

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 SST will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects.

The Government reserves the right to check any of 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 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 System (FAPPIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Government will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table below. The Government 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.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

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.

b. Section B - Factor 2, Technical Approach

The Technical Approach shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. If more than twenty (20) pages are submitted, only the first twenty (20) pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The Offeror shall provide a Technical Approach

Narrative describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP. The Offeror must demonstrate how it plans to execute the work from start to finish, meeting the performance requirements defined in Section 01 10 00 Summary of Work, and the capability to plan and execute the complete project.

Technical Approach Narrative. The technical approach shall include a description of all of the following, which shall be tailored to the project contemplated by this RFP:

i. Manpower required to construct the project (include the make-up of teams by trade), and a Subcontracting Plan that specifies which technical aspects the Offeror plans to self–perform as the prime contractor and, which tasks the subcontractor(s) will perform.

ii. The Offeror’s knowledge of requirements and constraints applicable to work in Belgium and regionally near the project location, to include the Offeror’s knowledge of permitting requirements applicable to a project of this size and type.

iii. The Offeror’s safety and quality control processes.

iv. The three (3) main areas of risk identified by the Offeror, along with the plan to mitigate the risks.

v. How the Offeror plans to manage submittals in advance (e.g., 30, 60, and 90 days out), what potential issues it anticipates, and how it will proactively resolve them.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of an assigned strength, to technical approach narratives that demonstrate that the Offeror has a physical presence in the European Union.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk as compared to the RFP requirements. As part of the evaluation, the Government will assess the strength of understanding of the project scope. The government will evaluate whether and to what extent the technical approach narrative:

i. Clearly defines manpower required to construct the project (include the make-up of teams by trade), and a Subcontracting Plan that specifies which technical aspects the Offeror plans to self–perform as the prime contractor and, which tasks the subcontractor(s) will perform.

ii. Demonstrates the Offeror’s knowledge of requirements and constraints applicable to work in Belgium and regionally near the project location, to include the Offeror’s knowledge of permitting requirements applicable to a project of this size and type.

iii. Comprehensively describes the Offeror’s safety and quality control processes.

iv. Identifies the three (3) main areas of risk identified by the Offeror, along with the plan to mitigate the risks.

v. Describes how the Offeror plans to manage submittals in advance (e.g., 30, 60, and 90 days out), what potential issues it anticipates, and how it will proactively resolve them.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of an assigned strength, to technical approach narratives that demonstrate that the Offeror has a physical presence in the European Union.

For this factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following table, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation:

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.

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

2. VOLUME TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Section A – Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully-executed JV agreements; fully-executed teaming agreements; and Letters of Commitment between the Prime Contractor and Key Subcontractor or Affiliate.

i. The cover letter shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

(2) The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the Solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

(4) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority.

ii. 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 JV parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

(b) The management approach of the JV in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the JV and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

(c) The structure of the JV and decision-ranking responsibilities of the JV 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 JV to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the JV.

(e) Identification of party maintaining the JV 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 JV.

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

(g) Identification of party having overall control of the JV.

(3) Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual JV parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the JV.

(4) A statement in the agreement that each member of the JV will be jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

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

iii. Other formal teaming agreements (also see C. EVALUATION

APPROACH, 2. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS) shall include the following:

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

(2) A Letter of Commitment between the Prime Contractor and other teaming party (e.g., Key Subcontrator and/or Affiliate). A Letter of Commitment sample is provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

b. Section B – Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments). Offerors shall submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 1442 using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this Solicitation. If applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each Solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments.

c. Section C – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the completed provisions FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.204- 7007. Note that FAR provision 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in the solicitation.

d. Section D – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA),Bank Letter of Guaranty (BLG), Bonds, Insurance and other Sureties, and Financial Information:

40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act) and FAR 28.102 require a 100% performance and payment bonds issued by an acceptable corporate surety for any construction contract exceeding $150,000. This requirement may be waived, however, by the contracting officer for work performed in foreign countries if it is found that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond.

This contract will be performed in a country outside the United States, and the contracting officer has found that it is impracticable for many otherwise eligible firms to access bonding from approved sureties. As such, and in accordance with FAR Part 28 and applicable contract clauses, the following bonding options and financial protections from other sureties are considered acceptable by the contracting officer:

1. A 100% performance and payment bond, as specified by 52.228-15, Performance and Payment Bonds – Construction.

The contracting officer will only accept performance and payment bonds from corporate sureties that appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies,” or bonds supported by coinsurance or reinsurance agreements from such listed sureties and conforming to the Department of the Treasury regulations in 31 CFR 223.10 and 223.11, as elaborated in FAR Part 28. The contracting officer requires any reinsurance agreements to be http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_227.htm#P741_133498 executed and submitted with the bonds before making a final determination on the bonds.

If an offeror intends to provide performance and payment bonds upon contract award, it must provide with its proposal a Bid Bond or other Bid Guarantee conforming to the requirements in FAR provision 52.228-1.

2. A Letter of Guarantee, as specified in clause 52.000-4062, “BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY,” equal to 10% of the contract award.

This letter may be issued by a Bank, Insurance Company, or other valid financial institution deemed acceptable to the contracting officer. This letter must conform to the requirements in clause 52.000-4062 and substantively follow the model provided in the RFP. The Letter of Guaranty must be accompanied by a notarized Certificate of Authority.

If an offeror intends to provide a Letter of Guarantee upon contract award, it must provide with its proposal a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) equal to 10% of the proposed price and substantively following the model provided in the RFP.

It should be noted that the Government will draw on Letter of Guaranty when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill his undertaking in whole or in part. As this contract requires the prime contractor to ensure the timely payment of satisfactorily performing subcontractors (see, e.g., FAR 52.232-2(c)), the failure to pay subcontractors can be considered a breach of contract and may result in the Government drawing on this Letter of Guaranty.

3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of clause 52.228-14 – “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” and is equal to 10% of the contract award.

An ILC must secure both performance and payment under the contract and substantively conform to the model provided in clause 52.228-14. It must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade. As per 52.228-14(d), the offeror must provide the contracting officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the ILC.

4. Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 10% of the contract award.

The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be in the same currency as the currency specified for the award of the contract. The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

5. United States bonds or notes equal to 10% of the contract award.

The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The contracting officer may --

(a) Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

(b) Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

If an offeror will use any of the Bid Guarantee options described in paras. 3-5, above, or a BLA described in para. 2, above, their proposal must indicate that intent at Volume II Section A. Only the above options will be considered acceptable unless an alternative is approved by the contracting officer in advance of the closing date for the receipt of proposals in a formal amendment to the solicitation.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BID GUARANTEE OR LETTER OF

ASSURANCE AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE WILL DETERMINE YOUR

PROPOSAL TO BE INCOMPLETE AND IT WILL NOT BE

EVALUATED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PAYMENT AND

PERFORMANCE BOND OR A BLG AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE MAY

BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT. HOWEVER,

THE OFFEROR MAY SUBMIT COMPLETE AND PROPERLY

EXECUTED ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ANY OF THE ABOVE

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY ARE DUE IF ORIGINALS

CANNOT BE OBTAINED DUE TO COVID-19 VIRUS

RESTRICTIONS, PROVIDING THAT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

ARE FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS THEY ARE

AVAILABLE.

6. Financial Information.

Offerors shall submit financial information to demonstrate they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. For example, past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and/or bank name, phone number and POC, etc.

e. Section E – Price. SUBMIT PRICE AS PART OF VOLUME II ONLY. DO

NOT SUBMIT PRICE WITH THE VOLUME I NON-PRICE FACTORS.

The Offeror is required to submit a complete Price Schedule that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs). An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

EVALUATION METHOD:

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate CLIN prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

Offerors are reminded, in accordance with FAR 52.215-20, the Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis as required to determine a price fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Total evaluated price consists of the base bid items, and all (if applicable) option bid items (all CLINs total). The Government will evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of any options will not obligate the Government to exercise those option(s). 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 cost estimate.

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

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SST.

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to Offerors for informational purposes:

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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308

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.

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 CPARS or 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. 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 past performance, the past performance of that firm will be considered as the 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, 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46318 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46318 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P707_126651 commitment is not provided, the 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.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror within the competitive range may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503 and will be allowed a minimum of seven (7) calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will be written or telephonic at the Contracting Officer’s discretion.

3. COMPETITIVE RANGE: The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors are urged to reflect their best possible terms, to include price related elements, since less than the best potential terms / prices could result in the exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.

(End of Summary of Changes) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P42_8238