B.08.03 Amendment 02 W912GB24R0015-A00002.pdf

W912GB24R0015

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:

Provide responses to RFIs;

Extend the solicitation close date to 10 May 2024 at 1400 CEST;

Correct the Construction Cost Limitation to $15,000,000.00;

Clarify that this aw ard w ill be made in U.S. Dollars. All proposals shall be submitted in U.S. Dollars.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Apr-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 W912GB24R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-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 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-Apr-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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIRMENTS

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Apr-2024 02:00 PM to 10-May-2024 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

Global Changes

CLIN 0001 -- CLIN 0005

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

In accordance with the attached plans and specifications.

To:

In accordance with the attached plans and specifications. This award will be made and shall be proposed in U.S.

Dollars.

SECTION 00 20 00 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD.

A. General.

(1) This solicitation will be advertised using full and open competition. The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed price construction contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation. Factor 2 (Work Plan) is more important than Factor 1 (Past Performance). When combined, all non-price factors are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 3).

(2) In the context of this proposal, the “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation.

(3) The Government intends to make an award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions, Offerors are encouraged to include their best pricing in their initial proposal.

(4) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The successful Offeror will be selected solely based on the evaluation factors set forth below.

Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

(5) Joint Ventures (JV). A joint venture is defined as a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliances,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation. An Offeror that is a joint venture will submit a copy of its legally binding 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. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and limits apply to the joint venture as a whole.

(6) Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii). In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(7) The Successful offeror will be selected solely based on the evaluation factors set forth below. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. The offeror’s technical proposal.

B. Evaluation Factors.

The government will evaluate proposals under the following factors:

Past Performance (Factor 1) Work Plan (Factor 2) Price (Factor 3)

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weakness in a proposal that increases the risk of a unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001

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

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

Strength – An aspect of a proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength – An aspect of a proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

2. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. Administrative Details and General Instructions: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33.

(1) General Proposal Format. The proposal shall be in electronic Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the Bid table of contents.

Title Page. The electronic proposal must include Offeror’s name and address, phone number and email address, title of the solicitation, solicitation number and date of submittal clearly identified.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, it must provide evidence of a legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all members of the joint venture. A searchable copy of the joint venture agreement in English and signed by all joint venture members shall be provided as part of the proposal in Factor 1, Past Performance. The joint venture agreement shall include the following:

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

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

b. 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.

c. 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.

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

e. Identification of a 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.

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

g. Identification of party having overall control of the joint venture.

h. A statement that the joint venture partners are jointly and severally liable under the contract.

Table of Contents. The electronic proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. The complete table of contents shall be included in each binder.

Submission Transmittal. Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted shall be considered. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire Bid (i.e. offerors submission and all teammate/subcontractor(s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33, or SF 30 if applicable. The date/time of attempted transmission is not determinative, the date/time the proposal is received is.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. Each volume of the proposal is expected to contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion.

Each Volume shall be contained within a separate electronic file.

(2) Proposal Content Limitations.

The Offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

The page count is at the discretion of the offeror, however, Factor 2,– Staffing and Work Plan may not be more than 20 written single-sided, single-spaced, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides

Extraneous information provided in the proposals will not be considered in the evaluations; therefore, the Offeror should provide only information that satisfies the solicitation requirements. Merely restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement.

DO NOT cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat data, or project information in more than one non-price area as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I) and a price proposal (Volume II). Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other. No technical proposal may contain reference to price. Offerors who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

Technical Proposal: Provide one (1) electronic proposal in Portable Document Format. Filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Technical proposals shall consist of information for Factors 1-3 listed in tabular form, as noted below. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be determined to show a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Technical (Non-Price) Factors and Sub-factors:

Tab 1 –Factor 1 – Past Performance

Tab 2 - Factor 2 – Work Plan

Price Proposal: Provide one (1) electronic proposal in Portable Document Format. Filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 33 (SF 33). The Price Proposal must be prepared in accordance with the following and must include:

Tab 1 – SF33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Block 14 of SF33.

Tab 2 – Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule.

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 3 - Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offerors.

The Offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00 45 00 and ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management (SAM) website https://www.sam.gov/SAM/

Tab 4 - Bid/Offer Guarantee. The requirement that an original and copy(ies) be submitted as found in block 9 of the SF33 is satisfied through the electronic submission. Additionally, electronic submission of the bid guarantee is due with the proposal submission (mailing a proposal guarantee is not allowed).

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 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.

If an offeror intends to provide a Letter of Guarantee upon contract award, it must provide with its 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 his undertaking in whole or in part. As this contract requires the prime contractor to ensure the timely payment of satisfactorily performing subcontractors (see, e.g., FAR 52.232‐2(c)), the failure to pay subcontractors can be considered a breach of contract and may result in the Government drawing on this Letter of Guaranty.

3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit that complies with the requirements of clause 52.228‐14 – “Irrevocable Letter of Credit” and is equal to 10% of the proposed price.

An ILC must secure both performance and payment under the contract and substantively conform to the model provided in clause 52.228‐14. It must be issued or confirmed by a federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade. As per 52.228‐14(d), the offeror must provide the contracting officer a credit rating from a recognized commercial rating service that indicates the financial institution has the required rating(s) as of the date of issuance of the ILC.

4. Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency equal to 10% of the proposed price.

The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be in the same currency as the currency specified for the award of the contract. The checks, drafts, or money orders shall be drawn to the order of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Finance and Accounting Officer.

5. United States bonds or notes equal to 10% of the proposed price.

The bond or note must be accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney and agreement authorizing the collection or sale of such United States bonds or notes in the event of default of the principal on the bond. The contracting officer may –

a) Turn securities over to the finance or other authorized agency official; or

b) Deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States, a Federal Reserve Bank (or branch with requisite facilities), or other depository designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, under procedures prescribed by the agency concerned and Treasury Department Circular No. 154.

If an offeror will use any of the Bid Guarantee options described in paras. 3‐5, above, or a BLA described in para. 2, above, their proposal must indicate that intent at Volume II Section A. Only the above options will be considered acceptable unless an alternative is approved by the contracting officer in advance of the closing date for the receipt of proposals in a formal amendment to the solicitation.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BID GUARANTEE OR LETTER OF ASSURANCE AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE WILL

DETERMINE YOUR PROPOSAL TO BE INCOMPLETE AND IT WILL NOT BE

EVALUATED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND OR A BLG AS PRESCRIBED ABOVE

MAY BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT. HOWEVER,

THE OFFEROR MAY SUBMIT COMPLETE AND PROPERLY EXECUTED ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ANY OF THE

ABOVE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY ARE DUE IF ORIGINALS

CANNOT BE OBTAINED DUE TO COVID‐19 VIRUS RESTRICTIONS, PROVIDING THAT THE ORIGINAL

DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS THEY ARE

AVAILABLE.

Submission of Proposals: Offeror shall submit its Proposal via email to kristina.k.morrow@usace.army.mil.

HARD COPY SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

Technical (Non-Price) Submission requirements and Evaluation Method

FACTOR 1– Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Submit the information outlined below for a maximum of 3 projects that have been completed or substantially completed within the last ten (10) years and demonstrate the offeror’s past performance constructing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation. Describe each project in enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right not to consider the project.

A maximum of 3 projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than 3 projects, only the first 3 projects will be evaluated.

For each project, submit the following information:

Information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror Experience Form. Address all items included in Attachment A.

A completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, if a completed or interim CPARS evaluation is available as applicable.

If there is not a completed or interim CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment B. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed or interim CPARS is available.

o 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 (Attachment B), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o 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, Kristina Morrow, via email at prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government

Entity Code/ Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Evaluation Method:

The past performance evaluation result is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

The first aspect is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the solicitation requirements. For this solicitation, recent projects are those projects:

Completed or substantially complete within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant the Offeror’s past performance projects are to the solicitation requirements. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, the government will consider the extent to which the offeror’s submitted construction projects involved the following:

Construction of multi-story buildings;

Construction in Belgium;

Construction of schools;

Ability to coordinate and manage restricted construction spaces and laydown areas;

Experience with the Department of Defense.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on its past performance projects. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements, and other customer expectations on these projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type, and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken (where applicable).

The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify offeror’s past performance information from references and other sources available to the Government.

Based on a consideration of those three aspects, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this factor. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using he table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 in 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance of for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and therefore may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 3) – Staffing and Work Plan

Submission requirements:

Submit a Staffing and Work plan describing the offeror’s proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents.

The Staffing and Work Plan must include, at a minimum:

Narrative:

o Risks and mitigations associated with limited site access and controlling access to the site during construction;

o Material and personnel procurement and transportation from laydown area to work site;

o How site access and deconfliction will be managed with other site users;

o Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel in accordance with the specifications.

The Staffing and Work Plan narrative shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.

Submissions exceeding 20 pages will not be read or evaluated beyond the first 20 pages.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will evaluate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

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

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or a combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption in schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In determining the strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Staffing and Work Plan:

The extent to which the offeror realistically discusses the means, methods, equipment, and sequence of work for major elements on the critical path; including the procurement and storage of materials;

The extent to which the offeror risk mitigation techniques are achievable;

The feasibility of the offeror’s material and personnel procurement and recruitment plan is achievable;

The extent to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the site access limitations, host nation compliance, workspace restrictions, risks, and mitigations.

Factor 3 - Price.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine a fair, reasonable, and realistic price. For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for all optional items to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. Final total evaluated prices must be determined fair, reasonable, and realistic to be considered for award.

In addition to the total evaluated price, Offerors shall also provide a detailed price narrative for each contract line item (CLIN) which shall include the following: Area Cost Factor (ACF), Overhead (JOOH and HOOH), Profit, Mark-Ups, bonding, other cost drivers to include labor discussion of number of shifts and days per week worked, labor restrictions impacting price; long lead items to include any difficulty acquiring any materials and/or equipment over $500K. Please also include any additional cost drivers which have impacted pricing. This information, and a comparative analysis to proposed prices and the Independent Government Estimate will assist in determining fair, reasonable, and realistic pricing for the requirement.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Failure to submit complete Pricing Schedule and Price Narrative may result in the offeror’s proposal being rejected by the Government after initial evaluation without further consideration.

The Government intends to use the proposal analysis techniques identified at FAR 15.40-1 to determine a fair and reasonable price. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject any and all offers. Offers found to be unreasonably high, may be considered unacceptable and rejected on that basis.

The Government will also review prices to determine whether they are so low that they lack a technical understanding of the requirement.

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, (1) to unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids, and (2) to the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.-

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 10 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.-

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.-

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

(End of provision)

SECTION 00 72 00 - GENERAL CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000)

(a) If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $3,247.78 for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

(b) If the Government terminates the Contractor's right to proceed, liquidated damages will continue to accrue until the work is completed. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)