B.08.03 RFP Amendment 0004_BH Army Lodge_W912GB23R0025.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 W912GB23R0025 is hereby amended as follow s:

1. Update "Evaluation Factors for aw ard" Management approach. Revisions are in red text.

2. Update Section 00 10 00 of Solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-May-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 W912GB23R0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-May-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:

W912GB23R0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

CLIN 0002

The CLIN description has changed from Supporting Facilities to Site work.

SUBCLIN 0002AA

The CLIN description has changed from NAF - Supporting Facilities to Site Work inside the 5-foot line –

NAF.

SUBCLIN 0002AB

The CLIN description has changed from DPW - Supporting Facilities to Site Work outside the 5-foot line

– DPW.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN description has changed from Site Grading and Site Preparation to German Government Charge.

SUBCLIN 0003AA

The CLIN description has changed from NAF - Site Grading to German Government Charge - NAF.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Site Grading and Site Preparation inside the 5- foot line – NAF

To:

SUBCLIN 0003AB

The CLIN description has changed from DPW - Site Grading to German Government Charge - DPW.

Site Grading and Site Preparation inside the 5- foot line – DPW

CLIN 0005

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0004.

The CLIN description has changed from Option 1: to Option 1: Playground.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Playground SurfacingThe Government reserves the right to award the options up to 90 calendar days from contact award.

The Government reserves the right to award the options up to 90 calendar days from contact award.

CLIN 0006

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0005.

The CLIN description has changed from Option 2: to Option 2: Commercial Laundry Equipment.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Commercial Laundry EquipmentThe Government reserves the right to award the options up to 90 calendar days from contact award.

CLIN 0007

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0006.

The CLIN description has changed from Option 3: to Option 3: Prep Kitchen/Dining Equipment.

Prep Kitchen/Dining Equipment

CLIN 0008

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0007.

The CLIN description has changed from Option 4: to Option 4: Kitchenettes.

Kitchenettes

CLIN 0009

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0008.

The CLIN description has changed from Option 5: to Option 5: Parking PV Carport.

Parking PV Carport

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0004 has been added:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

1095 dys. ANP 1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, EUROPE

CENAU-CT

KONRAD-ADENAUER RING 39

WIESBADEN 65187

(+49)611-9744-2600 FOB: Destination

WK4SF6

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph C of this section. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

The non-price factors, when combined are significantly more important than the price factor.

Factor 1: Past Performance, Factor 2: Management Approach, and Factor 3: Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule are of equal importance.

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 - Executive Summary. Include a one (1) page cover letter and any applicable fully-executed JV agreements and fully executed teaming agreements. The Executive Summary shall not exceed ten

(10) pages in total.

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

(1) The Solicitation number.

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

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

(4) 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:

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

b. Section B - Factor 1, Past Performance.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) projects substantially complete or completed within the last ten (10) years (from the RFP issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than ten (10) 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. Projects considered similar in size will have an award amount at or above $25,000,000.00. Projects considered similar in scope will be vertical multi-story construction projects.

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

i. New lodging facilities construction.

ii. Other new vertical construction, such as apartment building and multi-family housing.

iii. Projects demonstrating working on sites having restricted access, such as military installations.

iv. Projects that demonstrate work in Germany.

v. Projects that demonstrate working for the United States Government Department of Defense.

vi. Projects demonstrating working with proposed Key Subcontractors, team members and/or the proposed JV Partners.

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 and provide at least one qualifying sample project from each such entity. 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 or a similar document for each project. Past Performance Information Sheets or a similar document shall not exceed four (4) pages per project.

If more than 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.

Also include copies of performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards and/or award fee determinations. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by 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 System (FAPPIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

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

c. Section C - 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 Offeror shall arrange the chart by organizational levels and locations, depicting lines of authority. The chart should show the interrelationship between the contract management team and on-site project teams. The chart should include a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities for any teaming or joint venture arrangements. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the project will be managed and the authorities and delegations of authority within the team. The hierarchy of the organization chart shall show the Project Manager as the highest level of authority for key personnel on the project and shall be subordinate to an officer of the Prime Contractor.

The chart and narrative must:

identify all offices involved in this contract identify position(s) to communicate with the U.S. government identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location, including subcontractors and consultants include lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract 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, 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 Offeror shall describe the authorities delegated to project managers and field personnel. 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. host nation standards and regulations to meet final acceptance of the project after construction.

vi. The Offeror’s management and onsite staff’s ability to communicate in German and English.

vii. The Offerors should identify any additional and/or unique management advantages their proposal provides to the Government. Greater weight will be given to each of the following when assessing Offeror’s relevant experience:

Contractor’s staff that have on-site decision-making authority to include, but not limited to, negotiations, resolution of issues, resources, and the level of authority delegated to address issues

Organizational relationships which have been used on other projects that are same or similar to the scope of this RFP

Proposals that provide a description of relationship/contractual agreement with proposed subcontractors

Depth and breadth of technical experience and qualifications as it relates to the responsibilities of proposed key personnel

Key personnel experience working for the Prime contractor and with other key personnel Prime contractor key personnel and key subcontracting team experience working in the area of responsibility covered under the RFP.

The Management Approach, excluding the organizational chart, shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Management Approach submissions exceeding ten (10) pages will not be read or evaluated beyond the first ten (10) pages. Pages shall be letter or A4 sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two 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.

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

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

iv. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of construction and permitting requirements in Germany to include coordination with host nation authorities host nation standards and regulations to meet final acceptance of the project after construction.

v. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Germany and the ability to meet the requirements along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in German and English.

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 demonstrates 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.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table:

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 any 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 performance.

d. Section D - Factor 3, Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule –

The Offeror should provide a 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) Schedule. For the purposes of this factor only, the Offeror shall use the date of 14 Aug 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 winter time period.

Measures intended to reduce impact to on-going operations at Baumholder Military Community.

The offerors plan for executing construction of this project.

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 five (5) 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.).

The Technical Approach 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 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 of 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.

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 schedule (PDF Schedule) to assess conformance with the solicitation requirements.

NOTE: Do NOT include any cost or pricing information in the 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 demonstrates 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 Unacceptable 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.

The adjectival ratings, defined below, are not separate ratings, but will be used to define the levels of risk in the aforementioned table:

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 any 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 performance.

2. VOLUME II – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS / PRICE

NOTE: SECTIONS A, B, AND C WITHIN THIS VOLUME TWO ARE DUE WITH THE RFP

PART I AND SECTION D (BLA OR BID GUARANTEE) AND SECTION E ARE DUE WITH THE

RFP PART II.

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) 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.

(3) A statement indicating which type of Bid Guarantee will be submitted with the RFP Part II proposal or if the Offeror intends to submit a Bank Letter of Assurance (refer to Section D below).

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

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 Part II proposal a Bid Bond or other Bid Guarantee conforming to the requirements in FAR provision 52.228-1.

2. A Letter of Guarantee, as specified in clause 52.000-4062, “BANK LETTER OF

GUARANTY,” equal to 10% of the contract award.

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

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

It should be noted that the Government will draw on Letter of Guaranty when the contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill its 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) with the exception of CLIN 0004 and its subCLINs. An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate CLIN prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are reminded, in accordance with FAR 52.215-20, the Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis as required to determine a price fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Total evaluated price consists of the base bid items, and all (if applicable) option bid items (all CLINs total).

The Government will evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of any options will not obligate the Government to exercise those option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

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

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 to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with 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 proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

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

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as CPARS or FAPIIS.

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

The proposal must also include an agreement that has been executed between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. NOTE: For the purposes of evaluation under this RFP, if one of the parties in a teaming arrangement possesses relevant past performance, the past performance of that firm will be considered as the past performance of entire teaming arrangement.

a. JVs. If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a fully executed legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided earlier in this section.

b. Affiliates. In the case of an Offeror’s affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101 will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the past performance of any affiliate or team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

c. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g., if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to award without discussions, in accordance with the provisions of the RFP and applicable acquisition regulations. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS as described above, and the Offeror’s proposed price.

Pursuant to FAR 15.306(d), however, discussion sessions may be held after both RFP Part I and RFP Part II the proposals have been evaluated if the Contracting officer determines them necessary to determine that award will satisfactorily provide the Government its requirement at a fair and reasonable price. Should discussions take place, a competitive range will be established and all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed an opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions. In addition, 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.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified in…