B.08.03 Amend 0002 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) Add FAR Clauses 52.246-4, 52.246-5, 52.242-15, 52.242-15 Alt I, 52.242-17, 252.225-7966, and 252.225.7967

2) Revise Volume I, Factor 1: Past Performance to projects at least 80% complete

3) Correct language under Volume II, Factor 4: Price

4) The proposal due date is extended to 27 March 2024 at 10:00 CET.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-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 A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Mar-2024 10:00 AM to 27-Mar-2024 10:00 AM.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following have been added by reference:

52.246-4 Inspection Of Services--Fixed Price AUG 1996 52.246-5 Inspection Of Services Cost-Reimbursement APR 1984

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

52.242-15 Stop-Work Order AUG 1989 52.242-15 Alt I Stop-Work Order (Aug 1989) - Alternate I APR 1984 52.242-17 Government Delay Of Work APR 1984

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by full text:

252.225-7967 PROHIBITION REGARDING RUSSIAN FOSSIL FUEL OPERATIONS (DEVIATION 2024- O0006) (FEB 2024)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause— “Business operations” means knowingly engaging in commerce in any form, including acquiring, developing, maintaining, owning, selling, possessing, leasing, or operating equipment, facilities, personnel, products, services, personal property, real property, or any other known apparatus of business or commerce. The term does not include—

(1) Any shipment subject to price caps as specified in the—

(i) “Statement of the G7 and Australia on a Price Cap for Seaborne Russian-Origin Crude Oil”, issued on December 2, 2022, between member countries of that coalition; or

(ii) “Statement of the G7 and Australia on Price Caps for Seaborne Russian-Origin Petroleum Products Berlin, Brussels, Canberra, London, Ottawa, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Washington”, issued on February 4, 2023, between such members, if such shipment complies with the applicable price caps; or

(A) Actions taken for the benefit of the country of Ukraine, as determined by the Secretary; or

(B) Actions taken to support the suspension or termination of business operations for commercial activities during the period beginning on the effective date and ending on December 31, 2029, including—

(1) Any action to secure or divest from facilities, property, or equipment;

(2) The provision of products or services provided to reduce or eliminate operations in territory internationally recognized as the Russian Federation or to comply with sanctions relating to the Russian Federation; and;

(3) Activities that are incident to liquidating, dissolving, or winding down a subsidiary or legal entity in Russia.

Fossil fuel company means an entity or individual that—

(1) Carries out oil, gas, or coal exploration, development, or production activities;

(2) Processes or refines oil, gas, or coal; or

(3) Transports, or constructs facilities for the transportation of, Russian oil, gas, or coal.

(b) Prohibition. In accordance with section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31), the Contractor is prohibited from entering into a subcontract or other contractual instrument for the procurement of products or services with any entity or individual that is known to be, or that is known to have fossil fuel business operations with an entity or individual that is, not less than 50 percent owned, individually or collectively, by—

(1) An authority of the government of the Russian Federation; or

(2) A fossil fuel company that operates in the Russian Federation, except if the fossil fuel company transports oil or gas—

(i) Through the Russian Federation for sale outside of the Russian Federation; and

(ii) That was extracted from a country other than the Russian Federation with respect to the energy sector of which the President has not imposed sanctions as of the date on which the contract is awarded.

(c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts and other contractual instruments, including those for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.

(End of clause)

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

252.225-7966 (Dev) Prohibition Regarding Russian Fossil Fuel Business

Operations - Representation (Deviation 2024-O0006).

FEB 2024

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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:

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

Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project.

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

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 performance.

6. VOLUME II, FACTOR 4: PRICE

The Offeror is required to submit a complete Schedule of Items and Prices included as Appendix A to the solicitation. An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal will be considered unacceptable and will not receive further consideration.

EVALUATION METHOD:

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

FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of any options will not obligate the Government to exercise those option(s).

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

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

(ii) The price proposal is balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated.

An offeror’s proposal may be unacceptable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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

As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8. The prices for Option Period 4 (year 5) will apply to the additional six months of services beyond year 5, if awarded per FAR 52.217-8.

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 organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them; (f) the necessary construction, technical equipment and facilities to perform or the ability to obtain them; and (g) be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

This contract is Firm-Fixed-Price and Cost-Plus Fixed Fee 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.

7. VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Offerors shall submit a one (1) page cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

(1) The Solicitation number.

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

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

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

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

Offerors shall submit the following:

(1) A completed Standard Form (SF) 33 using a printed copy of the SF 33 included in this Solicitation. If applicable, Offeror’s shall also submit a completed SF30 for each Solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments.

(2) Completed provisions FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.204-7007. Note that FAR provision 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in the solicitation.

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

8. DISCUSSIONS

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 evaluation factors as described above. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(d), however, discussion sessions may be held after 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.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

(End of Summary of Changes)