B.08.03 Amend 0001 SF30 W912GB24R0009.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

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Incorporate the Revised Performance Work Statement dated 6 March 2024

2) Correct CLIN 0010 Item Description to read Task 10: Annual Fuel Site Assessment (NAS Sigonella and NSA Naples)

3) Remove DPR 00/34 Requirement

4) Volume 1, Factor 1: Past Performance has been revised to w rite projects considered similar in size w ill have a minimum cost of $500,000.

5) Volume 1, Factor 2: Technical Approach has been corrected to refer to US Installations in Italy

6) Instructions to Offerors revised to include: "Offers shall be valid for 120 calendar days after the proposal due date"

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Mar-2024

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 W912GB24R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Feb-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Mar-2024

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:

W912GB24R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0010

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

What is this Task?

To:

Annual Fuel Site Assessment (NAS Sigonella and NSA Naples)

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PROJECTS IN ITALY

1. ANTI-MAFIA LAW

Pre-Award Effect of Anti-Mafia Procedures: Inasmuch as the work of this solicitation is to be performed on land owned by the Italian State, the prospective contractor will be subject to all Italian legislation concerning anti-mafia documentation, including, without limitation: Legislative Decree no. 159 of September 6, 2011, Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252 of June 3, 1998, Legislative Decree no. 490 of August 8, 1994, Law Decree No. 629 of September 6, 1982, and any subsequent anti-mafia laws, integrations and amendments. Only firms that submit the requested documentation will be considered for award. In the event that prior to award any mafia infiltration attempt is determined by the competent Prefect (Prefetto) against an offeror, pursuant to Art. 4 of Legislative Decree no. 490/1994, Art. 10 of Decree of the President of the Republic no.

252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, no award will be made to said offeror. Furthermore, in the event that prior to award any additional information against an offeror is obtained and validated by the government or provided by the competent Prefect (Prefetto) pursuant to Art. 1, Section 7 of Law decree 629/1982, Art. 10, paragraph 9, of Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, the Government may decide, at its sole discretion, that no award will be made to said offeror.

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

Termination: If during the life of this contract, any mafia infiltration attempt is determined by the Government to have occurred or additional information is provided by the Prefect (Prefetto) against any component of the Contractor or any Subcontractor, pursuant to Art. 1, Section 7 of Law Decree 629/1982, Art 4 of Legislative Decree no. 490/1994, Art. 10 of Decree of the President of the Republic no. 252/1998, or any other anti-mafia law, the Government at its sole discretion may consider this a failure to execute the work and may terminate the contractor's right to proceed with the work under the "Default" clause of this contract.

Documentation Requirements: Contractor shall submit the following:

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

This documentation is to be included in your Price Proposal.

2. INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) ITALY

Work on a Government Installation. The following are the kinds and minimum amounts of insurance that are required for performance of this contract.

Employee and third-party bodily injury (in addition to the mandatory Contractor's country social insurance).

Per Person: Euro 258,228.450 Per Occurrence: Euro 516,456.8991

Third Party Property Damage:

Per Occurrence: Euro 258,228.450

Vehicle Liability Insurance in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Contractor's country.

Insurance policies may be denominated in other than the currency of the Contractor's country provided the amount is equivalent to those stated above and the insurance policies are valid in the country where the work is to be performed.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH HOST NATION LABOR LAWS, RELATIONS

AND STANDARDS (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) ITALY

a. The Contractor shall be responsible for complying with any and all Italian labor laws, relations and standards in effect or which shall come into effect during the term of this contract. Such compliance shall pertain to: hours of work, wages, salaries, working conditions, labor relations (including collective bargaining, union agreements, etc.), particular workmen's compensation, social security contributions for all categories of dependents and professionals.

b. Furthermore, the Contractor shall safeguard his firm with additional insurance against the risks of monetary recoupment by Italian authorities and workers for accidents, injuries or deaths which are imputable to the Contractor for failure to observe required safety practices and/or any requirement of paragraph a. above.

c. The Contractor shall be totally responsible and shall save harmless the U.S. Government from any and all disputes, claims, or grievances initiated by employees or third parties because of failure to comply with this special contract requirement.

d. With signature of the offer, the Contractor warrants that the proposed price(s) include all costs in effect, or which shall come into effect during the term of the contract for compliance with Italian labor laws, relations, and standards and also for all responsibilities and risks as indicated herein.

4. NON-WORKDAYS (ITALY)

Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, work shall not be performed at the on-base site of work on the following Italian or U.S. holidays (including other base closure days).

Regular working days as used herein mean Monday through Friday, from 0800 to 1700 hours, of each week with exception of established Italian or U.S. holidays or any other day proclaimed an official holiday by either Government.

Italian Holidays:

1 January – New Year's Day 6 January – Epiphany Monday following Easter – Easter Monday 25 April – Liberation Day 1 May – May Day 15 August – Assumption Day 1 November – All Saints Day 8 December – Immaculate Conception 25 December – Christmas Day 26 December – St. Stephen's Day

U.S. Holidays:

1 January – New Year's Day 3rd Monday in January – Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday 3rd Monday in February – President's Day Last Monday in May – Memorial Day 19 June – Juneteenth 4th of July – Independence Day 1st Monday in September – Labor Day 2nd Monday in October – Columbus Day 11 November – Veteran's Day 4th Thursday in November – Thanksgiving Day 25 December – Christmas Day

* When a U.S. holiday is on a Saturday, the preceding Friday will be the U.S. holiday. When the holiday is on a Sunday, the following Monday will be a U.S. holiday. If delivery is scheduled for a proclaimed holiday, delivery will be made on the next regular workday.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

I. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

**References to Government throughout the solicitation and subsequent contract awards, refer to the United States Government, unless otherwise noted. ***

A. Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

1. INTRODUCTION

The Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Europe District (NAU) intends to award a stand-alone services contract for Recurring Maintenance and Minor Repair (RMMR) services in support of the Defense Logistics Agency – Energy (DLA-E) requirements at NAS Sigonella, NSA Naples, Aviano AB, Camp Darby, Caserma Ederle, and Caserma Del Din, Italy. This contract will be a combination of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) for scheduled services, and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for unscheduled repairs up to $250,000. The period of performance will be a one-year base period, with four one-year option periods.

NOTE: When the word “Offeror” is encountered in the RFP, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this Solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean USACE NAU.

“Request for Proposal,” “RFP” and “Solicitation” are used synonymously throughout.

For the purposes of this Solicitation, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. The Government will evaluate both technical aspects of the proposal and price. The Government intends to award a single C-type contract. See Section M for further details on the Government’s evaluation approach.

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all Solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the RFP at or before the exact time specified. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents will be made available for viewing at the SAM website (http://www.sam.gov). All amendments will be made available for viewing in sam.gov. It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

Offers shall be valid for 120 calendar days after the proposal due date.

2. INQUIRIES

Offerors with technical inquiries and any other questions shall submit their inquiries via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet. The project number is: W912GB24R0009.

The bidder inquiry key is: 8XP8H3-ZZPDP9

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

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

To reduce paperwork and costs, ALL RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/Fedex delivery of hard copies and/or CD-ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized.

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) site: https://piee.eb.mil/. Please refer to Appendix E for instructions to Offerors on how to submit proposals using PIEE.

File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised that the file size limitation is subject to PIEE restrictions, if applicable.

File Names. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, title, followed by the word “PROPOSAL”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

1. W912GB24R0009 Italy RMMR PROPOSAL Firm name Volume I.pdf

2. W912GB24R0009 Italy RMMR PROPOSAL Firm name Volume II. pdf

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions. Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 point or larger and font text shall be legible. Pages shall be letter or A4 sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this Solicitation. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

Electronic files shall be Microsoft Windows compatible. Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one zipped folder.

Submission & Deadline. Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time and date of proposal receipt shall be the upload/completion delivery time and date recorded within PIEE. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Offerors should time their submission with prudence by not waiting until the last day—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the delivery and/or read confirmation for their record but shall also request confirmation. Be advised that proposals received after the submission deadline will be considered late and as such will be processed in accordance with FAR

15.208. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure receipt.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (Nov 2021),” subparagraph (e).

The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

System for Award Management. Offerors are reminded that this Solicitation includes the provision FAR 52.204-7 SAM and the resulting award will include the clause FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance. These provisions/clauses require all contractors to register and maintain an active SAM entity registration to be eligible for contract awards, as prescribed by the regulation at FAR Subpart 4.11. To be eligible for the contract award resulting from this Solicitation, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office. Instructions for domestic entities (located in the U.S. or its outlying areas): https://fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=d2e67885db0d5f00b3257d321f96194b&sysparm_search=kb00131

83. Instructions for international entities (not located in the U.S. or its outlying areas):

https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=dbf8053adb119344d71272131f961946&sysparm_search=KB0013

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.

Joint Ventures. An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding joint venture agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capability of any Offerors that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified and must be translated into English if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the past performance, technical approach and management approach of each of the Joint Venture Partners can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. The past performance for each Joint Venture Partner will be considered the past performance of the Joint Venture entity. Joint ventures shall submit with Volume I the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

A copy of their Joint Venture agreement in English.

A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

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

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

The structure of the joint venture and decision-ranking responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

The bonding responsibilities of the joint venture parties.

Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the joint venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the joint venture.

Identification of party maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the joint venture.

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

Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture parties and identify the party or hired as employees of the joint venture.

If one of the joint venture parties possesses relevant past performance, the past performance of that firm will be considered as the past performance of the joint venture.

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

All members of the Joint Venture shall sign the Standard Form (SF) 33 required in the Volume II proposal.

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.

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.

NOTICE

An offer may be rejected if an offeror objects to any of the terms of this RFP, including any part of the PWS. The Government plans to award a contract without discussions, so an offeror may not have an opportunity to withdraw any objections that the offeror has made or provide any of the items of information described above, after the date and time that offers must be delivered to the Government. Therefore, the Government urges the offeror to speak to the Government POC before objecting to any of the terms of this RFP, and to submit all of the items of information described above.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. 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 price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in 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.

2. PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

VOLUME I: NON-PRICE FACTORS

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance FACTOR 2 – Technical Approach FACTOR 3 – Management Approach

VOLUME II: PRICE FACTOR

FACTOR 4 – Price

Factor 1, Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor 2, Technical Approach, and Factor 3, Management Approach. Factor 2, Technical Approach, and Factor 3, Management Approach, are of equal importance. The non-price factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are significantly more important that cost or price (Factor 4).

3. VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) projects completed within the last six (6) years (from the RFP issue date) which are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the RFP issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project.

A project is defined as a work performed pursuant to one specific contract at one facility or multiple facilities at a single installation, or work performed at one facility or multiple facilities at multiple installations.

Projects considered similar in size will have a minimum cost of $500,000 per year of service.

Projects submitted less than $500,000 per year of service may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project

Projects considered similar in scope will be fuels systems maintenance and/or fuels systems unscheduled maintenance.

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

Projects that demonstrate working with the United States Department of Defense (DOD);

Projects that demonstrate work in Italy;

Projects that demonstrate working with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) recurring maintenance and minor repair program.

Projects that demonstrate managing multiple requirements and subcontractors at the same time;

Projects demonstrating working with proposed key subcontractors, team members, and/or the proposed JV partners;

Projects where Offeror’s contract included a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee element;

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

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 Appendix B to this RFP. Past Performance Information Sheets shall not exceed four (4) pages per project.

If more than four (4) pages for each project are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first four (4) pages of each 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 (PPQ) Form if a CPARS record is not available. 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 Appendix C to this RFP.

PPQ Instructions: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided PPQ and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed 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 METHOD:

The Government will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to the Submission Requirements paragraph above. By using the criteria above, the Government will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Source Selection Team (SST) will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any of all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including similar projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government may, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the 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 (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)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. VOLUME I, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH

SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS:

Offerors shall submit their proposed technical approach to achieve all necessary tasks covered in the PWS. There are overlapping tasks that may be covered under one technical approach section for the proposal. At a minimum, the Offeror shall include their technical approach to conduct recurring maintenance and minor repair work for a one-year time frame to cover NAS Sigonell a, NSA Naples, Aviano AB, Camp Darby, Caserma Ederle, Caserma Del Din and all other tasks specified in the PWS. The methodology shall state at a minimum:

a. Typical number of people per team

b. Make up of teams by trade

c. Tools, equipment, special equipment requirements

d. Approach to emergency service orders

e. Cost effectiveness in accomplishing tasks

f. Safety processes

g. Knowledge of regulatory requirements and constraints to include applicable

HN rules and regulations.

h. The approach utilized to accept, track, and complete minor repair service orders.

i. The processes that will be utilized to manage, track, and execute both firm fixed prices and cost reimbursable aspects of the PWS.

j. How the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with the PWS.

The Technical Approach shall not exceed ten (10) pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first ten (10) pages.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to conduct recurring maintenance and minor repair describing the methodology in performing the following tasks:

The degree that the proposal clearly specifies how to implement all requirements of the

PWS.

The degree that the proposal demonstrates a reasonable process and rationale for the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner, provide an adequate safety program, comply with regulatory requirements, and maintain the specific performance metrics

How the contractor will track, report and schedule service orders concurrently, from the management standpoint and from the cost standpoint to ensure all work is conducted within the dollar threshold of the individual line item

The degree that the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the service order process from initiation to close out, to include the methodology used to respond to the service order request within time specified in the PWS; troubleshoot the deficiency; prepare the cost estimates for each individual service order; execute service order repair; perform quality control; document closeout; and invoicing

How the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with contract provisions; and

A Technical Approach that demonstrates the least risk to the operations at DoD fuel facilities.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of assigned strengths, which demonstrate the criteria listed below:

Current implementation of a Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for management of maintenance and repair activities

Innovative approaches to maximize personnel efficiency or provide cost savings through reduced travel and labor when responding to service order calls, reduced system downtime, coordination of recurring maintenance minor repair with site operations, or minimizing impact to mission operations.

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. Highlighting or underlining strengths within proposal may be advantageous:

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.

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 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.

5. VOLUME I, FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Offerors shall provide a Management Approach that includes:

1. A brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation.

2. Lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, subcontractors, and the Government shown on an Organizational Chart.

3. Transition/Startup Plan: The plan should show how the Contractor will be ready to start work in accordance with the required contractual start date and beginning field operations. Specifically address:

a. Schedule

b. Hiring Personnel

c. Plan for inventorying equipment and validating information

d. Becoming familiar with the facilities

e. Paperwork and Contract Document requirements

f. Base Access

4. Identification of difficulties, uncertainties, and risks.

5. Process for responding to service calls.

6. Process and ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the PWS.

7. Identification of required key personnel and qualifications in accordance with the PWS.

8. Draft Project Schedule for all Firm Fixed Price Tasks that fall under the PWS for the first year of the contract.

9. Plan to procure necessary materials and equipment locally in Italy.

The Management Approach shall not exceed ten (10) pages and will not be read or evaluated beyond the first ten (10) pages. The organization chart and Schedule are not considered part of the ten (10) pages but have a maximum limit of twenty (20) pages. If more than twenty (20) pages are submitted for the organization chart and Schedule, only the first twenty (20) pages will be reviewed.

EVALUATION METHOD:

Evaluators will determine whether the Offerors demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. The narrative should address and contain a description of the items below, and more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater understanding via their descriptions to these items:

1. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, responsibility and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, subcontractors, and the Government. This information should be depicted on an organizational chart organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices and key personnel involved with the management and execution of the contract. Offerors shall additionally specify the sole point of contact who is authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government.

2. Transition/Startup Plan: Whether the proposal clearly details in a logical and reasonable manner how the Contractor will approach Transition/Startup Plan at the required contractual start date and beginning of field operations.

a. Addresses how and when new employees will be hired to augment personnel already employed

b. Addresses how equipment information will be inventoried and validated

c. Addresses how the Offeror will become familiar with all installations that fall under the PWS

d. Demonstrates understanding of paperwork, invoicing, and reporting requirements, to include submission timeframes

3. Whether the proposal clearly identifies difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks.

4. Whether the proposal demonstrates the ability and plan to inspect, repair, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the PWS.

5. Ability to provide key personnel that meet the qualifications in accordance with the PWS.

6. Completeness of the draft project schedule with enough detail that it can become the basis of the schedule for the period of performance of the first year of the contract.

The Government may give additional considerations, in the form of assigned strengths, to Offerors demonstrating of the criteria listed below:

Corporate registration (if applicable) and possession of any required permits/certifications, or qualifications issued by the Italian authorities.

Bi-lingual key personnel fluent in Italian 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. Highlighting or underlining strengths within proposal may be advantageous:

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.

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 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…