Amendment 01_W912GB-22-R-0003-U0001.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 W912GB22R0003 for the FY22 Germany Demolition Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Germany to provide Demolition services 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

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 W912GB22R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Jan-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

U0001

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Jan-2022

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:

W912GB22R0003

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:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Amendment 0001 – Revised Documents

Solicitation – Section 00 01 10 – Table of Contents:

- Table of Contents, Attachments, Attachment 8 was revised to read “Attachment 8 – Bonds and Other Financial Protections”.

Solicitation – Section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers:

- Section 00 21 16, Procedures for Submittal and Evaluation of Offers has been replaced in its entirerty.

Soliciation – Section 01 00 00 – General Requirements:

- Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work has been added.

- Section 01 30 00, Administrative Requirements has been replaced in its entirety.

Solicitation – Attachments:

- Attachment 3 – Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire has been replaced in its entirety.

- Attachment 4 – Bank Letter of Assurance Template has been replaced in its entirety.

- Attachment 6 – Bank Letter of Guarantee Sample has been replaced in its entirety.

- Attachment 8 – Bonds and Other Finacial Protections has been replaced in its entirety.

- Attachment 9 – Past Experience Information Sheet has been deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00 01 10 Table of Contents SECTION 00 10 00 Solicitation Contract Line‐Item Number (CLIN) Schedule SECTION 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors SECTION 00 22 16 Supplementary Instructions SECTION 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications ‐ Clauses SECTION 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract – Contract Clauses SECTION 01 11 00 Summary of Work SECTION 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 ‐ SPECIFICATIONS BINDER

ATTACHMENT 2 ‐ PROJECT DETAIL SHEET

ATTACHMENT 3 ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 4 ‐ BANK LETTER OF ASSURANCE TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 5 ‐ SAMPLE COMMITMENT LETTER

ATTACHMENT 6 ‐ BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 7 – PRICE SCHEDULE

ATTACHMENT 8 – PROJNET AND OTHER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS

ATTACHMENT 9 – PAST EXPIRIENCE INFORMATION SHEET

to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00 01 10 Table of Contents SECTION 00 10 00 Solicitation Contract Line‐Item Number (CLIN) Schedule SECTION 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors SECTION 00 22 16 Supplementary Instructions SECTION 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications ‐ Clauses SECTION 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract – Contract Clauses SECTION 01 11 00 Summary of Work SECTION 01 30 00 Administrative Requirements

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 ‐ SPECIFICATIONS BINDER

ATTACHMENT 2 ‐ PROJECT DETAIL SHEET

ATTACHMENT 3 ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT 4 ‐ BANK LETTER OF ASSURANCE TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 5 ‐ SAMPLE COMMITMENT LETTER

ATTACHMENT 6 ‐ BANK LETTER OF GUARANTY TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 7 – PRICE SCHEDULE

ATTACHMENT 8 – BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

CLIN 0001

The CLIN description has changed from FY 22 MATOC Germany Demolition to FY22 Germany Demolition MATOC.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

FY 22 Germany Demolition MATOOC Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Germany to provide Demolition services in Romania.The minimum guarantee for the entire contract (5 years) is $2,000.00.The entire contract (5 Year Base) shall not exceed $25,000,000.00.FOB:

Destination

To:

FY22 Germany Demolition Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Germany to provide demolition services.The minimum guarantee for the entire contract (5 years) is $2,000.00.The entire contract (5 Year Base) shall not exceed $25,000,000.00.FOB: Destination.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS Section 00 21 00 Instruction to Offerors

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Europe District (NAU) intends to award a target of five (5) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) to provide demolition, environmental, and construction services in Germany. NOTE: When the word “Offeror” is encountered in the RFP, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this Solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean USACE NAU. “Request for Proposal,” “RFP” and “Solicitation” are used synonymously throughout.

2. All task orders under this MATOC shall not exceed the total shared capacity of $25,000,000.00. Each awardee will be given fair opportunity for each order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1). The Government may exceed the stated minimum/maximum task order limitation upon mutual agreement of all parties (see FAR 52.216- 19 in the

RFP).

3. For the purposes of this Solicitation, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. The Government will evaluate both technical capability and price. The Government intends to award a target of five firm fixed price IDIQ contracts. See Section 00 22 12 for further details on the Government’s evaluation approach.

B. SF 1442 CONTINUATION PAGE

1) Block 11 – The Period of Performance will be determined on a task order basis.

2) The Surety requirement will be determined on a Task Order basis.

C. SCOPE

The purpose of this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to provide for demolition, environmental, and construction services for the United States Army, United States Air Force, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and other Department of Defense and Federal Agencies located on U.S.

military installations or in support of defense operations within Germany.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

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) at or before the exact time specified. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award.

Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will made available for viewing at the System for Award Management (SAM) website (http://www.sam.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in SAM. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

PROJNET INSTRUCTIONS PROJNET INSTRUCTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or the solicitation’s surety alternatives are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. As noted below, offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation.

To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system.

The Solicitation Number is: W912GB22R0003 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 77WUB9-W63E85 Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.projnet.org/ProjNet

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of bids/proposals.

NOTES:

1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation.

2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or the solicitation’s surety alternatives that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form 30. In the case of any conflicts, the solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary.

3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or the solicitation’s surety alternatives will be disabled five (5) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within two (2) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email.

There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:

https://safe.apps.mil/about.php

1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal.

This will need to be completed five (5) business days prior to proposal due date.

a. John J. Du Bois, Contract Specialist at john.j.dubois@usace.army.mil

b. Bjorn Hale, Contracting Officer at bjorn.hale@usace.army.mil

2. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two (2) business days prior to the proposal due date.

3. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter

W912GB22R0003-FIRMNAME.

4. Click Upload button to send documents.

5. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. No additional action is required by CAC users.

File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below. Volume I and Volume II should be uploaded and transferred at same time.

File Naming Convention: 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:

• W912GB22R0003-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I

• W912GB22R0003-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description.

Please see examples above.

File Organization: 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 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. 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 W912GB22R0003 pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & 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 upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text (i.e. using the CTRL F function). Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked). 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 Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Nov 2021),” 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.

mailto:john.j.dubois@usace.army.mil mailto:bjorn.hale@usace.army.mil

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION 00 21 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1. Overview

1.1. The intent of this solicitation is to select a target of five (5) contractors for firm fixed price multiple award task order contracts (MATOC) to provide demolition, environmental, and construction services in Germany.

1.2. The basis of award is the best value trade-off process. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offerors, whose proposal conforms with all terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposals are determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

The selected offerors will receive a minimum guarantee amount of $2,000.00 via the award of an initial task order at the time of MATOC award. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract.

Upon award of a subsequent task order which exceeds the minimum guarantee, the minimum guarantee will be de-obligated via unilateral modification. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any Offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order might not result from this solicitation.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1. 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, to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited action. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence, or in the wrong section of the proposal, may not be evaluated and may result in the offerors disqualification from award.

2.2. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers electronically through the DoD

Safe website (https://safe.apps.mil). Please see the complete electronic proposal submission instructions within the solicitation (Section 00 21 00 – Instructions).

2.3. Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and

2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted with a table of contents and clear divide between each section. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4. Volume I shall include the following information:

Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach

2.5. Volume II shall be submitted in a separate electronic document and include the following information:

Volume II: Tab A – Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule Volume II: Tab B – Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) Volume II: Tab C – Commitment Letters (if applicable) Volume II: Tab D – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Proof of Financial

Ability Volume II: Tab E – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) Volume II: Tab F – Pre-Award Information

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, 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 (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not 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 the best value trade-off process, as stated 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.

Proposal Compliance and 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 financial protections.

Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance (Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant experience (Table 1, below) and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Management Approach will be rated using Tables 3 and 4 below.

The SSEB will assign an adjectival descriptor to the technical factors. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings (see Table 3) and risk descriptions (see Table 4) below in section 4.5.

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

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 offerors that are 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:

past performance will be more important than management approach. All non-price factors when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.305(a)).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet RFP requirements.

4.2. Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3. Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach 2nd

4.4. Volume II: Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated

Tab C Commitment Letter Not Rated

Tab D Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Not Rated

Proof of Financial Ability

Tab E Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) Not Rated

Tab F 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 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.

Table 2

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 successfully perform the required effort.

During the best value tradeoff 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.

Table 3

Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Proposal is unawardable.

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.

Table 4

Technical Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

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

Normal contractor efforts 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.

4.6. Definitions

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.

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.

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

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

5. Volume I: Factor I – Past Performance

5.1. Submission Requirements

Provide descriptions of a minimum of two (2), and a maximum of five (5) substantially complete or completed by the prime contractor within the last 5 years (from the solicitation issue date) which are similar in size and scope. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered less relevant. Projects are considered substantially complete at 95% completion, if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar in scope. Task orders may not be combined for them to be considered similar.

Projects considered similar in size shall have a minimum contract value of €100,000.00.

Projects considered similar in scope are projects which include surveys, permitting, demolition, removal and disposal of entire structures and site restoration such as utility relocations, landscaping, paving, etc.

The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

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

Demonstrated experience in successfully completing demolition on United States Military bases.

Demonstrated experience in successfully completing demolition projects in Germany.

Demonstrated experience in successfully completing demolition for the United States

Department of Defense.

The following information shall be provided for each project:

Project title, location, and contract number/unique identifier.

Current percentage complete and the date it was or will be complete. For projects that are not

95% complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

Whether the project was completed for the United States Department of Defense.

For this factor, also include any information that supports past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify the submitted project[s] to which it pertains. A sample past performance questionnaire is attached. If used, the past performance questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the reference. For each project, the Offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

For each project under Factor 1, Offerors shall include a completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record or a completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form. If available, a completed record from the CPARS will be accepted for evaluation for 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 Past Performance Questionnaire (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.

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. Please refer to Section 00 21 00 Instructions - Submission Requirements with respect to submission requirements for a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors.

In the case of prime-sub teams, work with affiliates or other teaming partners, offerors are reminded that the offeror is the prime contractor and remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and third parties. Consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of key subcontractors, affiliates or other 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. Any subcontract(s) or other teaming agreements may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the required commitment letters (RFP TAB C).

The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of committed subcontractors, team members or affiliates except that, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a firm with equivalent or greater capability a firm that was proposed with a Commitment Letter in the proposal. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria

The SSEB will 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 each past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited MATOCs scope of work. A relevancy assessment will be made on each submitted project using the past performance relevancy ratings table above.

The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all citied references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including 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. Other sources may, 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.

The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for the offeror. The SSEB will 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 SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6. Volume I: Factor II – Management Approach

6.1. Submission Requirements

i.Provide an organizational chart and 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 should include the following:

− Identify all offices involved in this contract − 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 − Clearly show the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and Safety

Organization, including all JV Partners and subcontractors, when applicable

Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s organizational structure and intended approach for executing task orders in accordance with the specifications. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s team, and how members of the team, including sub-contractors (if applicable), will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of future task orders. The Management Approach should include the following:

o The offeror’s plan and capability to manage multiple task orders concurrently.

o The offeror’s knowledge of demolition and construction in Germany and the ability to communicate in English.

o The offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage sub-contractors in Germany.

Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s … team and how their resources will be utilized to deliver future task order awards. Describe the proposed management structure for the team (i.e., key members), explaining how the … process will be managed throughout the entirety of future task order life cycles (e.g., Survey, permitting, demolition, disposal, site restoration, Close-out).

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10), 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 Approach factor. If the page limit is exceeded, only the first ten (10) pages will be read and evaluated. There is a page limit of one (1), 11” x 17” page, for the organizational chart portion of this factor. Any information that exceeds these page limits will not be evaluated.

6.2. Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal. The

Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the USACE process and specifications and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute demolition projects. Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, risk, and logic and the extent to which the proposal illustrates a basic understanding of managing the contract.

In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following:

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

o Whether the proposal contains comprehensive descriptions of duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for the a) Program Manager, b) Project Manager, c) Site Superintendent, and d) Safety Manager, and other key personnel (e.g. contracts manager, security manager, logistics specialist, subcontracts manager, etc). Include the roles and major responsibilities and authorities for Key Subcontractors and JVs, presented in a logical manner.

o The extent to which the proposal describes a reasonable and logical plan for the performance of three (3) simultaneous task orders that illustrates a thorough understanding of multiple task order requirements, proposes personnel that meet the specification requirements, and provides subcontractor and personnel letters of commitment or JV agreements, when applicable

7. Volume 2: Pro Forma Information (Submit in separate PDF file)

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

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

Provide Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully executed JV agreements and fully executed teaming agreements.

o 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. Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this Solicitation.

5. 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.

Evaluation Criteria

The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

7.2. Tab B – Joint Venture (JV) Agreements

If the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV 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 member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

o 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.

Teaming Arrangements: If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the past performance of a firm other than the Offeror such as a subcontractor, team member, or affiliate (defined in FAR 2.101), a Letter of Commitment signed by authorized representatives of the Offeror and by authorized representatives of the non-Offeror firm must be submitted with the proposal. A sample for such Commitment Letters is provided as an attachment. The signatures and substantive terms of these sample commitments are required for consideration of the teaming arrangement for evaluation purposes.

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

7.3. Tab C – Commitment Letters (if applicable)

The offeror shall thoroughly complete and submit Commitment Letters for sub-contractors (see attached Commitment Letter sample).

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

7.4. Tab D – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Financial Protections and Proof of Financial Ability

Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

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, number and POC, etc.

Financial Protections. 40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Sub-Chapter 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.

Future task order awards 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 as described in para. 7.5, below are considered acceptable by the contracting officer on future task order awards.

For additional forms of bonding refer to section 00 22…