W912PL-16-R-0010_Am1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICAITON NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 your 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 APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

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

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

CHECK ONE 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.

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable Amendment 0001

1 1

0001 22 Jan 2016

W912PL

U.S Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles Dist CESPL-CT-E, East Region Branch 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90017

U.S Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles Dist CESPL-CT-E, East Region Branch 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90017

W912PL-16-R-0010

5 Jan 2016

FY16 F35 Squadron Operations AMU Aircraft Maintenance Hanger 4, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona

Replace Section 00 22 16 Page 2 with attached paragraph II.(a) as amended.

W912PL-16-R-0010

(Phase I)

Design-Build F-35 AMU/Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 4 Luke Air Force Base, AZ

SECTION 00 22 16 - 1

AMENDMENT 0001

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS (PHASE I)

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

III. LIST OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE WEIGHTS

IV. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

V. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL

VI. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

VII. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

SECTION 00 22 16 - 2

SECTION 00 22 16

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

I. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), no contract will be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

II. SOURCE SELECTION USING THE BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF PROCESS

(a) In Phase One of this solicitation, the Government will first review unpriced technical proposals to determine a competitive range for those Contractors that will proceed to Phase Two of this solicitation. Each non-price evaluation technical factor will receive an adjectival rating. After evaluating Phase One proposals, the number of offerors that will be selected to submit Phase Two -proposals will be approximately five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors as determined by the Contracting Officer.

(b) The offerors who fall within the competitive range will be requested to submit proposals using Phase Two evaluation factors which will be provided by amendment to this solicitation. In Phase Two, the Government will select the offeror that represents the best value to the Government by using the trade-off process described in FAR PART 15. This process permits trade-offs between price and technical (“non-cost”) factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The award decision will be based on a comparative assessment in proposal against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

(c) Proposals shall not use broad statements such as: “Offeror understands”, or “will comply with the specifications”, or statements paraphrasing the specifications, and general or overly broad statements such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”. Proposals with these type of statements will be rated non-acceptable.

(d) RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

All non-price (i.e., technical) evaluation factors are in order of descending order of precedence.

III. GENERAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

(a) The offerors conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the format and/or the submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during contract performance. Lack of conformance could therefore result in a higher risk assessment in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

SECTION 00 22 16 - 3

(b) The adjectival rating, of the Technical Proposal may be negatively affected if the specified information is not provided in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions in Section 00 22 00.

(c) The adjectival rating of the Technical Proposal may be negatively affected if the proposals are generic, vague, or lacking in detail.

(d) The degree of risk to the Government inherent in the offerors technical proposal will be a consideration under this factor.

(e) The Government may consider a proposal based on a deficient offer if the Government elects to enter into discussions with offerors and all deficiencies are remedied in revised proposals.

IV. LIST OF THE PHASE I TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING SCHEME:

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on the following Phase I technical evaluation factors

a. Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID

BUILD CONTRACTS

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD PROJECTS

FACTOR 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

FACTOR 4: CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

b. Relative Weights:

Factors 1 and 2 are approximately equal in importance, and when combined, are worth significantly more than the combined weight of the remaining factors.

Factor 3 and 4 are 2nd in relative importance to Factors 1 and 2, with Factor 4 being less important than Factor 3.

c. Rating Scheme

SECTION 00 22 16 - 4

FACTOR 2 RATING SCHEME PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE

FACTORS 1, 3, 4 RATING SCHEME

RATING DESCRIPTION

OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicate an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

Proposal meets requirements and indicate a through approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

MARGINAL

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

SECTION 00 22 16 - 5

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.

FACTOR 2 RATING SCHEME 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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

SECTION 00 22 16 - 6

V. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

The weighting of the evaluation factors takes into consideration not only how important that particular factor is to the overall project, but also the latitude for the Offeror to provide features that would be more advantageous to the Government. An evaluation of technical quality/technical merit is inherent in these criteria. Proposals, which exceed the minimum criteria will therefore be rated higher than proposals which only meet the minimum criteria in accordance with the value of these features to the Government.

Risk to the Government will be evaluated. Proposal risk is an assessment of the weaknesses and risks associated with the Offerors proposed approach derived from the technical evaluation. Performance risk is an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts relative to the past performance factor.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD CONTRACTS

EXPERIENCE – The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s successful experience and proposed team’s experience (including key subcontractor experience as part of the prime contractor team) on projects of similar type, scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the work that is required under this RFP.

Offeror shall identify at least three (3) projects for the construction firm and at least three (3) projects for the design firm that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the RFP project, and which were successfully completed within the past five (5) years.

Provide a brief description of each project, describe its scope of work, as well as total dollar value of the contract at the time of award and at the time of completion. Provide the name, address and telephone number of the owner. In the case of a federal, state or local government project, provide the name, address, and telephone number of the contracting officer.

The offeror must demonstrate experience in new hangar design and construction and experience with Squadron Operations buildings and Aircraft Maintenance Unit (AMU) Facilities

The offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable construction and development, based on project experience on projects that have achieved US Green Building Council’s LEED certification or were certifiable at LEED silver or better or project experience on completed Corps of Engineers projects. Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate experience with LEED certified building construction. Experience on actual certified projects will be considered advantageous to the government. The narrative should address the incorporation of LEED credit compliance in construction, and how the offeror’s experiences will ultimately result in a certified LEED project.

The offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in either Special Access Program Facility (SAPF) or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction and development. Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate accredited/certified experience with SAPF or SCIF accredited/certified building construction. Experience on actual accredited/certified SAPF projects will be considered more advantageous to the government than accredited/certified SCIF construction.

Demonstration of design and construction team member experience in SAPF and SCIF will be considered most advantageous to the government. The narrative should address the incorporation of SAPF compliance in construction, and how the Offeror’s experiences will ultimately result in a SAPF accredited/certified project.

The offeror must demonstrate qualifications and experience in Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Lightning Protection Systems (LPS).

SECTION 00 22 16 - 7

Information submitted on projects currently under construction, design-bid-build or design-build will only be evaluated if the work is completed to an extent, from which experience can be creditable, i.e., at least 70% construction complete. Projects older than five years from date of proposal submittal will not be evaluated.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD AND DESIGN BID BUILD

PROJECTS

PERFORMANCE – This area considers the Offeror's capabilities and past performance for successful completion of recent, relevant construction projects.

For each project identified in Factor #1, describe the scope of the work, contract price at the time of award, explain project cost growth during contract performance, and contract price at the time of completion. Include explanation of the reasons for cost growth.

For each project, describe the contract performance period set forth in the contract, explain time growth during contract performance, if any, and the number of days from the start of the project to acceptance by the owner/government agency. Include explanation of the reasons for time growth.

Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate LEED accredited building construction performance.

Actual Gold, Silver, or Platinum certified project performance will be considered advantageous to the government. The narrative should address the offeror’s past performance in LEED construction, and how the offerer’s performance will result in an accredited LEED project.

Offeror shall identify recent projects that illustrate either Special Access Program Facility (SAPF) or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) construction performance. The narrative should address the offeror’s past performance in SAPF/ SCIF construction, and how the offerer’s performance will result in a SAPF accredited/certified project.

Also add The Government will give more consideration for experience constructing a SAPF/SCIF accredited/certified project.

Identify and describe any warranty issues raised by the owner, and how the problems were resolved; if no warranty issues were raised, offerors should so state.

Offeror is encouraged to provide information on problems encountered on the projects and the offeror’s corrective action.

(a) The Government will evaluate past performance information to assess the risks associated with each Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on that Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts within the past five years as an indicator of the likelihood of successful completion of the proposed project in terms of time, cost and quality of work. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size, physically or in dollar value and technical or logistical complexity of the contracts identified in the proposal.

SECTION 00 22 16 - 8

(b) The evaluation may take into consideration the Offeror’s record of conformance to contract specifications and standards of good workmanship; the Offeror’s safety performance, the Offeror’s adherence to contract cost, the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedule, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, and timely award and management of subcontracts;

(c) The evaluation may take into account the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

(d) The performance record of proposed major subcontractors and proposed key personnel might also be considered. The result will be a performance risk rating based on the identified strengths and weaknesses in each Offerors record of past performance.

(e) In conducting the performance risk assessment, the government may use data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to automated databases, contacting the owner or contracting officer of the project. The “References’ Past Performance/Quality Questionnaire” (Past Performance Reference Check in Section 00 22 00) is one of the means that may be used by the government to collect past performance information.

The Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may also take into consideration the Offerors performance of contracts with the Agency.

(f) While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete factual information pertaining to recent and relevant contracts from which the Government can ascertain past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Inaccurate or incomplete data from the Offeror may result in a less than satisfactory past performance/risk-assessment rating.

(g) Past performance information collected by the Government may be used for both the responsibility determination for this procurement and in conjunction with the technical evaluation.

(h) 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the Government is not precluded from making award to a higher-priced Offeror with a favorable past performance record over a lower-priced Offeror with a “neutral” past performance rating

For this solicitation under Past Performance Evaluation, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will first evaluate the relevancy of the projects submitted and compare them to the effort to be required in this source selection. The Government determines relevancy and in making this determination the following apply:

The Government will also assess how well an offeror performed on the projects submitted. The Government will, as necessary, confirm past performance data identified by the offeror in its proposal and obtain additional past performance information if available from other sources.

When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

Factor 2 will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. This is an overall rating which takes into consideration each offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of

SECTION 00 22 16 - 9

performance which reflects the Government’s assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

For Factor 2, in a Joint venture, or if multiple firms are evaluated the overall rating for Factor 2 will be based on the firm on experience from one, the other, or both contractors. In Factor 2, the Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of any corporate entity or any Joint Venture business association by reference to the experience of its principal offerors, key employees, and related companies such as a parent company, its affiliated subsidiaries, or its various divisions if part of a large business entity. Only Past performance information of the corporate entity named on the signed SF 1442 submitted in Volume II will be evaluated. As to past performance information obtained by the Government from other sources, the government will only consider the past performance information for the corporate entity named on the SF 1442 submitted in Volume II.

The Government will give more consideration for experience constructing a LEED accredited project.

If a prime contractor has little or no record of relevant past performance information, or the record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably established, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the SSEB shall rate the offeror either favorable or unfavorable. It shall be rated Unknown Confidence.

Standard for Acceptability: Based on the offeror’s performance records, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

FACTOR 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ overall management approach to help ensure a successful project completion. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ corporate, design and construction management structure, experience and qualifications of the key personnel and major subcontractors proposed for the project to include the capability to staff, manage, resource and control successful projects.

Personnel will be evaluated on their overall professional experience and on specific experience on projects of similar type, scope, and complexity to the work required under this RFP.

(a) The offeror shall provide narrative and visual representations. The Government will evaluate the management structure of illustrated organizational charts, described levels of personnel authority of the individuals involved specifically with this project and the involvement of the construction team, including major subcontractors. The management structure should enhance communication flow within the construction team as well as with the customer.

(b) The offeror must explain its present workload, how its resources would be used to meet both its current workload and this project, and the availability of the proposed design and construction team to execute the contract. In cases where members of the design or construction teams will be dividing their time between multiple projects, the offeror will indicate the relative anticipated availability of those team members. The Government will evaluate present workload and how its resources would be allocated among the competing interests, and the availability of a team to execute the contract

(c) The Government will evaluate Offeror's Succession Plan: The offer must explain a succession plan for replacement of key personnel for the design and construction team including principals of the company, Joint Venture Partners, project management, site superintendent, scheduler, quality control, safety management, Design Team Project Manager, Design Manager, and Design Quality Control Manager. Offeror’s Succession Plan will identify specific individuals who can step

SECTION 00 22 16 - 10

into key roles if needed, and provide some indication of what qualifications those individuals possess; not only for on-site personnel but for other essential employees or principals of the company as well. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to perform in the event it needs to replace business partners, and/or key personnel, including positions for project, site superintendent, scheduler, construction quality control, safety management, Design Team Project Manager, Design Manager, and Design Quality Control Manager.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 4: CORPORATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

The Government will evaluate corporate, design and construction management structure, experience and qualifications of the key personnel and major subcontractors proposed for the project to include the capability to staff, manage, resource and control successful projects. Personnel will be evaluated on their overall professional experience and on specific experience on projects of similar type, scope, and complexity to the work required under this RFP.

The offeror shall provide résumés for persons directly responsible for carrying out the design and construction requirements of this contract. The narrative should also address the LEED accredited personnel that will be a part of the construction teams. The narrative should demonstrate key personnel SCIF and/or SAPF experience. The Government will evaluate design and construction personnel directly responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of this contract. Professional qualifications and years of relevant experience will both be assessed.

Specifically the proposed Project Manager, Construction Site Superintendent, LEED Accredited Professional(s), Safety Manager, Quality Control (QC), Design Team Project Manager, Design Manager, and Design Quality Control Manager, as required within the EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – CONTSRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL (Résumé) and EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – DESIGN TEAM KEY PERSONNEL (Résumé).

Technical Spec Section 01 45 01 requires the QC Manager to have a degree, however, on this procurement the degree requirement for Quality Control manager may be waived in lieu of experience. The QC manager must have the degree or minimum 8 years construction/engineering experience with at least 5 years as a CQC Manager or they may be considered deficient for this factor.

Standard for Acceptability: This standard is met when the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

VI. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate technical proposals without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions and receive revised proposals if later determined to be necessary.

VII. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

The Offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

SECTION 00 22 16 - 11

The Offeror’s adherence to page and formatting limitations prescribed will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified page limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, if 31 pages or greater are submitted in response to this solicitation, the excess information after page 30 will not be evaluated.

The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the solicitation requirements. Non-compliance with the technical evaluation factors will be considered a deficiency and an unsatisfactory rating may be assigned.

VIII. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PREAWARD COSTS

The Request for Proposal does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the initial and/or any subsequent proposals or for any other costs incurred prior to execution of the Contract.

-END OF SECTION