B.08.03 Amendment 0002 to RFP W912GB23R0021.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

Request for Proposal (RFP) to Construct Army Family Housing Replacement, Smith Barracks, Baumholder Family Housing Area, USAG Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.

Please see Continuation Page for Amendment 0002 details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 28

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Mar-2023

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 W912GB23R0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Feb-2023

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 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

14-Mar-2023

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:

W912GB23R0021

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. Add FAR Clause 52.232-27 Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts;

2. Revise Section 00 22 16 Evaluation Factors for Award;

3. Provide a revised Price Schedule;

4. Provide additional UXO pictures FOR INFORMATION ONLY;

5. Provide revised Specifications; and

6. Provide revised Drawings.

Changes are identified either in red text, underlines, strikethroughs, or a combination of those techniques.

The due date and time for offers has been extended to March 30, 2023 at 10:00 CEST.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

40 Town houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I, civil works for thecomplete development, neighborhood recreational amenities, trashcollection enclosures, utilities, landscaping, and new heating plantbuilding in Wetzel area.

To:

40 Town houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H, and I, civil works for thecomplete development, neighborhood recreational amenities, trashcollection enclosures, utilities, landscaping, and new heating plantbuilding in Wetzel area.

CLIN 0009

Option 5- 6 Town Houses allocated in the block H (4units 3 bedrooms TH and 2 units 4-bedroom TH) in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 5- 6 Town Houses allocated in the block F (4units 3 bedrooms TH and 2 units 4-bedroom TH) in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed

CLIN 0010

Option 6- Window with shutters in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 6- Window with shutters in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all

CLIN 0011

Option 7- Cover installations with plasterboard in garage in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed

Option 7- Cover installations with plasterboard in garage in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed

CLIN 0012

Option 8- Exterior galvanized steel stairs with handrail and concrete foundation in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 8- Exterior galvanized steel stairs with handrail and concrete foundation in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

CLIN 0013

Option 9- 120V installation in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 9- 120V installation in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

CLIN 0014

Option 10- Ceiling fan in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 10- Ceiling fan in 40 Town Houses in blocks A, B, C, D, G, H and I in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

CLIN 0020

Option 16- Window with shutters in 6 Town Houses in block H in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 16- Window with shutters in 6 Town Houses in block F in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

CLIN 0021

Option 17- Cover installations with plasterboard in garage in 6 Town Houses in block H in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all

Option 17- Cover installations with plasterboard in garage in 6 Town Houses in block F in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all

CLIN 0022

Option 18- Exterior galvanized steel stairs with handrails and concrete foundation in 6 Town Houses in block H in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed

Option 18- Exterior galvanized steel stairs with handrails and concrete foundation in 6 Town Houses in block F in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed

CLIN 0023

Option 19- 120V installation in 6 Town Houses in block H in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

Option 19- 120V installation in 6 Town Houses in block F in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the base line item and be completed concurrently with all other work.

CLIN 0024

Option 20- Ceiling fan in 6 Town Houses in block H in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice

Option 20- Ceiling fan in 6 Town Houses in block F in Wetzel area. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option via contract modification issued to the Contractor within 180 calendar days after Contractor receives Notice

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been added by full text:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section 00 22 16 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 factors, when combined are significantly more important than the price factor.

Factor, 1 Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor 2, Management Approach and Factor 3, Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule. Factor 2, Management Approach and Factor 3, Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule are equally important.

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: Management Approach Factor 3: Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule

Factor 4: Price

1. VOLUME I – NON-PRICE

a. Section A - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a maximum of five (5) projects where the contractor was the prime contractor, which are similar to this project in size and scope, substantially complete or completed within the last six (6) years from the RFP issue date. 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.

Substantially complete is defined as project completion of at least 80% of the awarded contract scope/amount. The offeror must explain how the project has been calculated or determined to have met 80% completion.

Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum cost of $25,000,000.

Projects considered similar in scope will be vertical construction projects, such as housing facilities construction and vertical multi-story construction.

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

i. New construction of U.S. Military Housing facilities.

ii. Projects that demonstrate vertical construction in Germany.

iii. Projects for USACE, the U.S. military, the U.S. Department of Defense

(DoD) or any other U.S. Government agency following procedures similar to DoD.

iv. Projects demonstrating working successfully with proposed Key Subcontractors, team members and/or the proposed JV Partners as applicable.

If the Offeror wants the Government to consider a Teaming Arrangement for its past performance; it shall identify all such entities in its Factor 1 proposal. For a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror, it is not required to have experience working as JV;

the members of the JV may submit experience on behalf of the Offeror. NOTE:

the provided projects should reflect the same or significantly similar scope of work that will be performed by that entity under this Contract.

Past performance completed as/by a subcontractor will be considered Not Relevant and will not be reviewed.

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.

The Offeror should complete a Past Performance Information Sheet provided as an attachment to this RFP. Past Performance Information Sheets or a similar document shall not exceed four (4) pages per project.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first five (5) 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 Evaluation Questionnaire 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 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form, provided as an RFP Attachment.

PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire 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 Past Performance Questionnaires 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.

Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by 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.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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 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 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.

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)). The Offeror will be assigned a “neutral” past performance with a performance risk of “unknown”. A “Neutral (unknown) Confidence” will be assigned under the Performance Confidence Assessment evaluation. 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 (Unknown) 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, Management Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a Management Approach, which shall include at a minimum:

i. 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 (from offeror HQ to the project site site) involved in this contract with locations.

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 Clearly show the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Project Superintendent(s), CQC System Manager(s), Quality Control Representative(s) and Site Safety and Health Officer(s), including all JV Partners and subcontractors (and each firm’s rolls and responsibilities, when applicable.

ii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure consistent quality across the team.

Discuss quality control lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure consistent safety across the team.

Discuss safety lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iv. 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. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Prime Contractor and all key sub-contractors. The Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor.

v. Discuss knowledge of construction and permitting requirements in

Germany. to include coordination with local authorities.

vi. Ability to communicate in German and English for the proposed key personnel and company management involved in the project.

The Management Approach shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.

Management Approach submissions exceeding fifteen (15) pages will not be read or evaluated beyond the first fifteen (15) pages.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic. The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the Management Approach:

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. 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.

ii. Comprehensively describes how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team.

iii. Comprehensively describes how the Offeror will ensure safety consistently across the team.

iv. Comprehensively describes the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and mange subcontractors.

v. Whether the Offeror dDemonstrates a thorough knowledge of certification and registration requirements for companies, and construction and permitting requirements in Germany to include coordination with host nation authorities. the ability to provide documentation to meet host nation standards and regulations to meet final acceptance of the project after construction.

vi. Whether the Offeror dDemonstrates the ability to communicate in

German and English for their proposed key personnel and company management involved in the project.

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/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to 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 have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful

c. Section C - Factor 3, Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule –

The Offeror should provide a comprehensive plan describing their proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents. The plan shall consist of (1) a Technical Approach Narrative and (2) Network Schedule.

For the purposes of this factor only, the Offeror shall use the date of (31 July 2023) for Notice to Proceed (NTP) and prepare the schedule assuming that all base line items and options will be awarded on that date.

The Technical Approach Narrative shall include:

i. Describe the offerors overall plan for executing the work from NTP to final completion.

The plan should specifically address:

All work to be performed during winter months (all years of the contract). Include a description of any special measures which the offeror intends to take to mitigate the impacts of cold and inclement weather conditions which may be encountered during the wintertime period.

Measures intended to reduce impact to daily on-going operations of the Baumholder Military Community (ej. ACP access during peak hours commuting hours, school bus drop-off and pick-up schedule, driving through family housing area).

The offerors plan for executing construction of this project, to include the coordination with other ongoing construction projects on base.

ii. Identify long lead-time items and describe steps to be taken to ensure they will be available on site timely.

iii. Identification of large equipment (including any proposed construction cranes, and batch plants) to be used to perform the work along with the source (self-owned, subcontractor, etc.).

iv. Identification of up to three (3 main risks identified by the Offeror in their schedule, along with mitigation measures.

v. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). As part of the constraints, identify working at two different geographical sites (Smith Barracks and Wetzel Housing area).

The Technical Approach Narrative, including the schedule narrative, shall not exceed ten (10) pages. Technical Approach Narrative submissions exceeding 10 pages will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 10 pages.

The Network Schedule must include both a Schedule and a Schedule Narrative consisting of the following:

i. A schedule prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in PDF format specifically tailored to the project contemplated by this solicitation. The schedule shall include all the major portions of work, including submittals, reviews, and approval periods.

ii. A description of activities along the critical path of the schedule and all activities with less than one week of float with their relation to the critical path. The schedule should clearly address the 2 sites (Smith Barracks and Wetzel Housing Area) discussed in the RFP and should demonstrate that the Offerors can accomplish the work in an efficient manner within the period of performance.

iii. Explanation of how durations were determined, and logic developed.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor.

The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule for the project will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the Solicitation requirements. As part of the evaluation, the Government will assess:

i. Whether and to what extent the narrative and schedule correlate and support one another.

ii. How well the proposed schedule meets the contractual milestone dates and performance requirements defined in Specification Section 01 11 00 Summary of Work.

iii. The strength of understanding of the project scope, and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., durations of activities, long lead items, critical milestones, logic of proposed phasing, etc.).

iv. The realism of the schedule.

The Government may use independent judgment concerning logic, constraints, and typical construction durations.

Full compliance with Specification Section 01 32 01 Project Schedule (NAU) is not required, however the Government will evaluate the network schedule (PDF Schedule) to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements.

NOTE: Do NOT include any cost or pricing information in the Network Schedule.

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/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to 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 have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful

2. VOLUME TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE

a. Section A – Executive Summary.

i. Offerors shall submit a one (1) page cover letter 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.

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:

(2) A copy of their teaming agreement in English, signed by all parties of the team. Offerors are advised that a proposed teaming agreement or an agreement to negotiate a teaming arrangement in the event an offeror receives a contract award is NOT a valid teaming agreement. Members of the teaming agreement shall include a letter of commitment with the proposal that demonstrates they are committed to performing the aspects of work the teaming arrangement indicates they will perform during contract

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 following:

i. A completed clause FAR 52.204-8(d).

ii. A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award

Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data, “assertions”, and “POCs”.

iii. A copy of their current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

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

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 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 RFP, 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 RFP, 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 proposed price.

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 proposed price.

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 proposed price.

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.

e. Section E – Price

The Offeror is required to submit a completed Price Schedule (see Section 00 10 00 of the RFP) 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 CRITERIA:

Price will be evaluated 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).

The Government will evaluate an offeror’s price proposal in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

a. The price proposal is complete: To be complete, the offeror shall provide all data that is requested to evaluate the price. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

b. The price proposal is balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. An offeror’s proposal may be unacceptable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. The price proposal is reasonable: Price reasonableness will be determined based upon comparison of an offeror’s price proposal with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and to prices in the market (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals).

Price evaluations will not result in an assigned adjectival rating. Contract line items will be analyzed to determine whether unit prices proposed for the work to be performed are unbalanced and increase performance risk to the Government. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as, material, labor, equipment, etc. and indirect costs, such as, job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price.

Responsibility: In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, the Contracting Officer will perform an affirmative responsibility determination to ensure that the Offeror has (a) adequate financial resources to perform; (b) the ability to comply with the required performance schedule; (c) a satisfactory performance record; (d) a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; (e) the necessary equipment and facilities to perform or the ability to obtain them; and (f) all other required qualifications and is eligible to receive award.

This contract is firm-fixed price and is payable entirely in Euros. No additional sums will be payable due to any escalation in the cost of materials, equipment or labor. The Contractor’s failure to properly estimate or accurately predict the cost and/or difficulty in achieving the results required by this contract is not reimbursable. The contract price will not be adjusted on account of fluctuations in the currency exchange rates.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SST.

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

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

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a…