Amendment_0001.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

Subject: N33191-18-R-0610, Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Construction Contract (MACC) for Rota, Spain.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the evaluation factors for aw ard instructions.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Mar-2018

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 N3319118R0610

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Mar-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Mar-2018

CODE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA SOUTHWEST ASIA

PSC 817 BOX 51

FPO AE 09622-0051

N33191 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3319118R0610

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet

Attachment 2 – Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 3 – Pre-Proposal Inquiries

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and award a contract without conducting discussions;

therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price perspective.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

If discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors in the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly rated proposals, considering price and technical merit.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer’s approval.

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

A MACC is a contract awarded from a single solicitation and may result in award to multiple contractors. This procurement consists of one solicitation with the intent to award approximately five (5) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to the offerors whose proposals, conforming to the solicitation, represent the best value – the proposals most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. Successful offerors will compete for future work during the term of the contract.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS/RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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.

The trade-off process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

The contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to those responsible offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering “Price” and “Non- Price” evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offerors or other than the highest technically rated offerors. The Non-Price evaluation factors are:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Technical Solution

Non-Price Factors 1 – 3 will be evaluated in Phase I. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II. Non-Price Factors 4 and 5 will be evaluated in Phase II. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the Government will consider Non-Price Factors 2 – 5 and Price. The relative order of importance of the Non-Price evaluation factors is that Technical Factors 2, 4, and 5 are equal to each other and when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3 – Past Performance). The combined Non-Price evaluation factors are approximately equal to price. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the trade-offs that led to the best value decision.

Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This Two-Phase Design-Build (D-B) procurement will result in the award of approximately five (5) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts under a Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for a one-year base period with provisions for the exercise of four one-year option periods.

For this Two-Phase D-B procurement, Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in Phase I. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II. Factors 4 – 5 will be evaluated in Phase II.

Phase I of the solicitation is a narrowing process of offerors based on responsiveness and evaluation of non-price technical factor submittals. Based on the Phase I evaluation criteria, approximately five (5) of the most highly rated offerors will proceed to Phase II. The Government however reserves the right to select less than or more than five

(5) offerors to proceed to Phase II, should it be deemed to be in the best interest of the Government to do so. Phase II offerors will be required to submit both a Price Proposal and Non-Price Proposal.

The relative order of importance of the Non-Price evaluation factors is the Technical Factors – Factor 2 – Experience, Factor 4 – Safety, and Factor 5 – Technical Solution – are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor, Factor 3 – Past Performance. Factor 1 – Technical Approach will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the Non-Price Evaluation Factors) are approximately equal to Price.

Phase I Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance

All ratings from Phase I will be carried into Phase II unless new or revised information is provided.

Phase II Non-Price Factors:

Factor 4 – Safety

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the Design-Build (D-B) Team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages, with an additional page allowed that contains only the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

Font size shall be a minimum of 12.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) in English.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror’s proposal will be rated on whether or not the criteria specified under the Solicitation Submittal requirements, above, has been included. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. The Government will only review up to five projects for construction and five additional projects for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as vertical infrastructure construction or repair projects (new construction, renovation, alteration, demolition, repair, additions and upgrades of facilities, waterfront facilities, or airfields) with a construction contract value equal to or exceeding $500,000 (or the equivalent foreign currency) with multiple construction trades to construct a complete and usable facility.

Projects submitted for the Offeror must have been completed or substantially complete within five (5) years of the proposal due date of this solicitation. “Substantially Complete” is defined as the construction being at least 75% physically complete.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) pages. Font size shall be a minimum of 12.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this solicitation (i.e.: unique features, location, construction methods, and construction start and end duration for establishing the Contractor’s ability to perform multiple, concurrent, projects). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project (if applicable), including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation for projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted separately for each Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all proposed Joint Venture members will be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement in order to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. If the experience of a subcontractor is used to demonstrate construction experience, the Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as vertical infrastructure construction or repair projects (design of new construction, renovation, alteration, demolition, repair, additions and upgrades of facilities, waterfront facilities, or airfields) with a construction contract value equal to or exceeding $500,000 (or the equivalent foreign currency) with three or more different engineering disciplines required in the design phase.

Projects submitted must have been completed within five (5) years of the proposal due date of this solicitation. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal due date of this solicitation.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) pages.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this solicitation (i.e.: unique features, location, whether the project was Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build, whether it was performed in conjunction with the proposed Offeror). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project (if applicable), including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation for projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. If the experience of a design subcontractor is used to demonstrate design experience, the Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will only review five projects for construction and five for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing at least 50% of the constructed work may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self-performance.

Offerors who submit relevant projects performed in the geographic area of Spain may receive a higher rating than those performed outside of Spain.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CCASS or ACASS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 2) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Cynthia Mafara at cynthia.mafara@eu.navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall not exceed four pages in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. More emphasis will be placed on more relevant projects. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown Confidence rating.

ATTACHMENT 1

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5

DESIGN #1 DESIGN #2 DESIGN #3 DESIGN #4 DESIGN #5

1. Experience for: Offeror Joint-Venture Other (Explain)

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Title:

Location:

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

6. Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects. Complete Block 8 for Design Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Award Amount: Final Price:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (explain):

If Design-Build, identify the Lead Design Firm and Design Portion Completion Date:________________________________

8. Design Project:

A/E Design Fee: Total Construction Value:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build RFP Development Designer of Record Engineering Services Full Plans & Specs

Other (explain):

9. Provide a detailed description of the project and the relevancy to the project requirements of this solicitation (i.e.: unique features, square footage, construction methods), including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications. If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.

10. Provide a detailed description of what work your firm self-performed on this project:

11. Other Information:

ATTACHMENT 2

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced E VG S M U N cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

ATTACHMENT 3

Offerors who determine that the technical and or contractual requirements of this solicitation require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal shall submit all questions in writing. Inquiries shall be submitted via e-mail to cynthia.mafara@eu.navy.mil. Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) will be accepted up to 10 days prior to the due date of the proposals. Responses will be published via amendment to the solicitation.

Confirmation of email receipt will be sent to each PPI.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY

Solicitation: N33191-18-R-0610 PPI No.

SOLICITATION: Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for Construction, Renovation, Repair, and Demolition of Facilities, Waterfronts, Airfields, or Other Related Infrastructure, Rota, Spain

NOTE: ALL PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL, ON THIS FORM TO THE

FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESSES.

PCO E-mail: cynthia.mafara@eu.navy.mil

DATE OF PROPOSAL INQUIRY:

FROM: FIRM: POC:

ADDRESS:

PHONE NO.: FAX NO.:

E-MAIL ADDRESS:

PROPOSAL INQUIRY: (Please type or print clearly)

(Include Solicitation Section, page number, and paragraph if applicable)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

RESPONDER’S SIGNATURE/DATE: __________________________________

(End of Summary of Changes)