N3319121R4002 SOUDA BAY JOC 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

Correct languange in evaluation criteria to say "approximatley" equal for all factors.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-May-2021

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 N3319121R4002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Apr-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

04-May-2021

CODE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA CENTRAL

VIALE PORTO CAPODICHINO

NAPOLI 80144

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3319121R4002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 13 - INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS

PROPOSAL: The Proposal shall be submitted via email to Michelle Ruiz at Michelle.ruiz@eu.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at Alex.wingert@eu.navy.mil no later than 1 June 2021 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET). Hand carried proposals will be NOT be accepted. Submit the Proposal with the following subject line:

“SOLICITATION N33191-21-R-4002 SOUDA BAY JOC PROPOSAL”

Multiple e-mails may need to be sent for any of the submissions, if your e-mail exceeds 5MB. The U.S. Navy computer server will only accept e-mails with attachments up to 5MB. If you need to submit more than one e-mail for the above submission, number them at the end of the e-mail subject title as “1 of ?”, “2 of ?”, etc.

Proposals not received at the above address on or before the hour and date set for the receipt of proposals shall be considered late, subject to the provisions of FAR Clause 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2004).

The PRICE PROPOSAL shall include the following:

a. First page of the proposal shall be in accordance with FAR52.215-1(c)(2)

b. All information required by the Price Proposal submission

The NON-PRICE PROPOSAL shall include the following:

a) First page of the proposal shall be in accordance with FAR52.215-1(c)(2)

b) All information required by Factor 1, Corporate Experience

c) All information required by Factor 2, Management Approach

d) All information required by Factor 3, Safety

e) All information required by Factor 4, PastPerformance

It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure the government received the proposal and all enclosures by the proposal due date and time as set forth above.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI)

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to Michelle Ruiz, Contract Specialist at Michelle.ruiz@eu.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at Alex.wingert@eu.navy.mil . Pre- Proposal Inquiries shall reference the drawing/detail and/or the specification section, including paragraph number.

Verbal queries will not be accepted. Responses to the Pre-Proposal Inquiries will be provided as an attachment to an amendment and will be posted to the Contract Opportunities (FBO) website www.beta.sam.gov . The Government may not respond to Pre-Proposal Inquiries submitted less than 10 days before the proposal receipt due date. The Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Template is provided as Attachment C.

AMENDMENTS

Amendments will be posted to the Contract Opportunities (FBO) website www.beta.sam.gov . It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the www.beta.sam.gov website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. All Amendments SHALL be acknowledge in the offeror’s proposal per instructions.

PREAWARD SURVEY/RESPONSIBILITYDETERMINATION

FAR 9.104 requires prospective contractors to demonstrate, among other things, that they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or ability to obtain them, capability to comply with the required performance schedule, a satisfactory performance record, and be otherwise eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. The pre-award survey is not a part of the technical evaluation. The following information shall be submitted:

a. Company financial statements (balance sheets and income statements) for the past three years.

b. Financial resources available to perform the contract. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital that will be used for the performance of the contract. If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, identify the maximum lines of credit that will be available to include documentation to support the amounts. The maximum lines of credit should be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort. For joint ventures, discuss the financial responsibilities among companies and provide the same information for each partner.

PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE

The Contractor shall provide a notarized Performance Guarantee letter within ten (10) days after issuance of each task order greater than $150,000 or as required by the Contracting Officer. In lieu of the 10% Performance Guarantee requirement, the Offeror may provide Performance and Payment Bonds, pursuant to FAR Clause 52.228- 15, through an approved surety under the United States Treasury Department Circular 570. If the Offeror fails to provide a Performance Guarantee letter or Performance and Payment Bonds within ten (10) days, the task order may be terminated for default. In such event, Offeror shall be liable for any cost of re-procuring the work which exceeds the amount of his offer.

The Performance Guarantee letter shall be accompanied by a notarized document authenticating the financial institution's authority to sign the letter. An English translation of the Performance Guarantee letter shall be submitted at the same time.

Performance Guarantee: An amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the contract shall be deposited into a properly certified banking institution, which will then issue an irrevocable letter guaranteeing the payment of the amount deposited plus any applicable interest, to the United States Government, upon demand by the Contracting Officer. Demand will be made if the Contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill its undertaking in whole or in part. Payment to the Contracting Officer will be by check made payable to the "United States of America by the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia."

The Performance Guarantee shall take effect upon the date of signature of the Performance Guarantee letter and shall remain valid and irrevocable until one (1) year after the work has been finally inspected and accepted by the Government."

A. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. This One-Phase procurement will result in the award of an Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract. In making the best-value award decision, the government will evaluate Factors 1-4 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (i.e., Technical Approach, Experience and Safety) are approximately equal to each other and when combined are approximately equal to the performance confidence assessment (past performance). The combined non-price factors are approximately equal to price.

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

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.

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. It is the Government's intent to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if they are deemed necessary.

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.

The importance of price will increase if the offerors’ non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume I – Price Proposal)

For the purposes of establishing coefficients for this contract, the offeror shall provide a proposed coefficient for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) 0001 through 0004 on the Coefficient Schedule, provided as an attachment to the solicitation. Failure to offer a coefficient for CLINs 0001 through 0004 will result in the offeror being ineligible for award. CLIN 0005 will be a placeholder for the design price for task orders requiring the need for a professional engineer’s stamp. The Coefficient Schedule will always include a coefficient of 1.0 for this CLIN.

For projects that require a professional engineer’s stamp, these costs will be negotiated at the time of each task order. The coefficients will become a part of the contract upon award and will be effective for the base period and all option periods. On the Coefficient Schedule, the offeror is to multiply the proposed coefficients by their associated multiplier to arrive at an Estimated Amount for CLINs 0001 through 0004.

The Estimated Amounts for CLINS 0001 through 0004 are to be added together to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror’s price proposal shall be separate from the technical proposal. Complete and submit the following:

1) Cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including Solicitation Number;

name, address, telephone and email address of the Offeror; in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), the name of the JV MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED;

Name, title, and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal; DUNS Number and CAGE or NCAGE Code of the Offeror, in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), provide a DUNS Number for each member of the JV.

2) Completed (Blocks 14 through 20c), signed and dated Standard Form (SF) 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. In block 14, please include a point of contract with a valid phone number and email address. Offerors shall provide a CAGE/NCAGE code in block 14.

3) Letter from the offeror’s surety. The letter is to verify the offeror has at least a $3M aggregate bonding capacity.

4) Completed Coefficient Schedule.

5) A bulleted list, identifying all cost factor categories included in your coefficient. At a minimum, your coefficient is to include the cost elements identified in the General Requirements, Paragraph C.4 and its subparagraphs. This narrative is limited to one (1) 8.5” x 11” page, one inch margins, Times New Roman size 12 font.

6) Acknowledgement of all amendments.

7) Joint Venture (JV) Agreement (if applicable).

8) Financial Statements – The offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements, certified by an independent accounting firm or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. If a new Joint Venture (JV) is being proposed, include the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each firm, certified by an independent accounting firm or at least by an authorized officer of the organization.

9) Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital from an independent financial institution which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract.

10) The Government intends to pay invoices in accordance with the clause for Wide Area Work Flow. To do this, your firm must have a U.S. bank or a U.S. bank affiliate associated with your local bank. With your proposal, identify the name of your U.S. bank or affiliate for purposes of paying invoices.

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all CLINs on the Coefficient Schedule. To calculate the TEP the Government will:

1. Calculate each contract contract-line item number (CLIN) price by multiplying the proposed coefficient for each CLIN by the corresponding estimated value of work.

2. Sum the price for all CLINs to arrive at TEP.

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

• Comparison of proposed coefficients received in response to the RFP;

• Comparison of proposed coefficients with the Government Estimate;

• Comparison of proposed coefficients with available historical information;

• Comparison of proposed coefficients with market average.

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis of proposed prices to determine risk of unreasonable low proposed prices when compared to offeror-proposed prices submitted in response to the solicitation or in comparison with the IGE.

(b) NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume II – Non-Price Proposal)

This One-Phase procurement will result in the award of an Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract.

In making the best-value award decision, the government will evaluate Factors 1-4 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (i.e., Technical Approach, Experience and Safety) are approximately equal to each other and when combined are approximatelyof equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance). The combined non-price factors are approximately equal to price.

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

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.

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. It is the Government's intent to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if they are deemed necessary. 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.

The importance of price will increase if the offerors’ non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a minimum of five (5) to a maximum of ten (10) examples of recent and relevant projects that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience. Offerors shall utilize the Construction and Design Experience Data Sheet, Attachment C, to submit applicable project information. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) pages (8.5” x 11”; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font) per project. If the page limit is exceeded, only the first two (2) pages per project will be evaluated.

For each project the offeror shall provide:

1. Contract number, title, and location

2. Dollar value; annually and contract life

3. Type of contract (i.e. fixed price, cost reimbursable, or other – specify) If applicable, identify base period and all option periods

4. Contract start date and completion date and beneficial occupancy date (BOD)

5. Identify type of services provided – similar scope, size & complexity

6. Nature of firm’s responsibility (prime contractor or subcontractor)

7. Percentage of the work that your firm performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor

A project is defined as a repair, alteration, demolition, maintenance services or construction project performed under a single task order or contract. 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.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed, the location of the work performed, and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The projects may be for the U.S. Government or other clients.

For purposes of this evaluation, a recent project is defined as a project that was completed no more than five (5) years prior to issuance of the solicitation.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as:

a. Has a total value of at least $40,000. (If a project was awarded in a currency other than US dollars, the offeror must convert the non-US dollar currency into US dollars using the appropriate exchange rate as of the day the contract for the submitted project was awarded).

b. Is for renovation; repair; maintenance; replacement; alteration; demolition; or construction tasks performed under a single order or contract.

c. The project narrative reflects the capability to perform multiple projects and disciplines simultaneously.

The projects submitted shall clearly identify if the offeror performed as a prime contractor, joint venture/team/partner member or as a subcontractor. If experience was as a subcontractor, then less credit may be given to the experience. If more than ten (10) projects are submitted, only the most recent ten will be reviewed in the evaluation.

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 shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. The Government will not consider any project submitted for Factor 1 if it was performed by a firm other than the offeror and there is no supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, letter of commitment, or explanation of meaningful involvement. Offerors are still limited to a total of ten (10) projects combined.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include a subjective assessment of the demonstrated experience and depth of experience of the offeror in performing recent and relevant projects, as defined in the solicitation requirements. The assessment of the offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. Only projects that meet the criteria for recency and relevancy will be evaluated.

Demonstrating any of the following may result in a more favorable consideration in the Government’s evaluation. Demonstrating three or more of the following, on a prior project, may result in additional strengths:

1. Experience working on JOC or other IDIQ contracts.

2. Experience with compliance with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC).

3. Experience within Souda Bay, Greece or other countries within the NAVAC EURAFCENT area of responsibility.

4. Experience leveraging local resources.

5. Fast response times on urgent requirements.

6. Experience self-performing relevant features of work.

7. Experience in ALL of the following types of work: new construction, renovation, utility systems and alteration.

8. Experience in ALL of the following types of utility systems: potable water systems, waste water systems, electrical systems and mechanical systems (HVAC, Plumbing, pumps).

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information will be deemed deficient/unacceptable.

FACTOR 2, MANAGEMENT APPROACH:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offeror’s response shall be a minimum of five (5) and maximum ten (10) pages (8.5” x 11”; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font) for this factor. If more than ten (10) pages are submitted, only the first ten (10) pages will be evaluated. The offeror shall provide the following:

1. Provide an organizational chart and a workforce management plan describing the interrelationship of the off-site management team and on-site management team(s).

Organization chart should clearly show management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. At a minimum the organization chart must display key personnel. Workforce management plan should clearly describe how the offeror will meet the contract requirements for key personnel identified in Section C.4 (Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety and Health Officer).

2. Discuss approach to Subcontractor relationships (if applicable). Include any pre-established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this solicitation, quantifying number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. If an offeror does not intend to use sub-contractors, they must clearly state that all work will be self-performed.

3. Describe offeror’s approach for working in areas of limited access, limited lay down space, and working around activities with minimal disruption.

4. Discuss how the offeror will provide labor, materials, equipment, subcontractors, and key personnel to perform multiple tasks and multiple sites simultaneously, when required.

5. Discuss how the offeror will respond to proposed task orders that may have short notice site visits and/or response times for submitting proposals.

6. Discuss management familiarity and approach to joint scoping work with the Government, to include examples of any previous joint-scoping efforts.

7. Discuss the how offeror will handle surges in workload and the offeror’s approach to work scheduling.

8. Discuss how the Offeror will provide Fire Protection Engineering services both through a US License Fire Protection Engineer (US Professional Engineering (PE) registration under Fire Protection) and also a Greek Licensed Fire Protection Engineer (Greek Professional Engineer licensed by the Technical Chamber of Greece (TCG) with the technical duties dictated by Greek legislation to include among others Greek Presidential Gazettes PD 41/2018 and PD 187/2018). These services would apply to design development and for construction submittals

9. Discuss the Offeror’s Phase-In and Phase-Out plan in order to provide continuity of services at the start of the contract (See Paragraph B.3 of Section 01 00 00 - General Requirements).

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will include a subjective assessment of the depth of experience and qualifications of the offeror’s management team. The evaluation will also include a subjective assessment of the proposed management approach and offeror’s responses to the submittal requirements for this factor.

Offerors may receive a higher rating if they can successfully demonstrate in their narrative their ability to meet one or more of the following:

1. An organizational chart and supporting management approach that shows adequate personnel and organizational structure to manage multiple and simultaneous task orders (more than five (5)).

2. Strong scheduling capabilities demonstrating the ability to manage multiple simultaneous project schedules with competing milestone dates.

3. Quick turnaround times on last minute requirements.

4. A good QA/QC program to maximize quality of workmanship.

Offerors that fail to provide an organizational chart that meets the minimum workforce management plan requirements may be considered a deficiency.

FACTOR 3, SAFETY:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall submit a Safety Narrative addressing the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following shall address each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture;

only one safety narrative is required.)

The narrative shall describe the offeror’s technical approach to safety for its employees as well as the plan that the offeror will implement to evaluate and measure safety performance of potential subcontractors as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Due to the variety of work that may be issued under this contract, the offeror shall submit their plan for potential subcontractors even if the offeror does not anticipate the use of subcontractors initially. Failure to submit a plan to evaluate and measure safety performance of potential subcontractors will be considered a deficiency.

The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages (8.5” x 11”; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font). If more than two (2) pages are submitted, only the first two (2) pages will be reviewed in the evaluation.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the offeror has consistently demonstrated a proven history of safety.and that the offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the factor based on the degree to which an offeror’s safety approach meets the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to safety for its employees, the offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors and safety methods that the offeror plans to implement for this procurement.

The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, the information provided in the Safety Narrative response, Government agencies, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) and Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) databases and other related resource. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the offeror.

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

1. Offeror’s technical approach to safety

2. Other sources of information available to the Government

Regarding subcontractors, the Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project.

Demonstrating any of the following may result in a more favorable consideration in the Government’s evaluation:

1. A proven history of safety.

2. A proven history of hiring subcontractors with a culture of safety.

FACTOR 4, PAST PERFORMANCE:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience.

If a completed CPAR evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPAR evaluation, the PPQ, Attachment B, is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to their client(s) for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1 - Experience.

An offeror shall not submit a PPQ when a completed CPAR is available. Ensure correct and current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror must complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

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

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. 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.

If past performance data is supplied for a firm whose CAGE code and DUNS number does not match the CAGE code and DUNS number for the offeror, the offeror MUST provide a DETAILED written explanation of how the experience, past performance is relevant.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects documented in other sources. More emphasis will be placed on projects that were performed for the US Government and relevant projects as described by relevancy ratings. 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)/CPARS 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 source.

Offerors may receive higher confidence assessment rating if they can demonstrate that their firm meets two (2) or more of the following criteria:

1. A pattern of successful completion of tasks, with ALL relevant projects submitted receiving a Satisfactory or better performance rating.

2. A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality, with more than five (5) recent and relevant projects with a Satisfactory or better performance rating AND that were completed within the scheduled period of performance.

3. A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Client at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.)

4. Successful performance of recent and relevant projects/tasks that are identical to, similar to or related to the successful performance of the task at hand.

The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’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 RFP. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment B – Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet Attachment C – Pre-Proposal Inquiry Form Attachment D – Coefficient Schedule

Attachment Spec Item Description

Section J - Attachment 1

C.3.3

PWD-UTILITY

CONNECTION-01

Section J - Attachment 2

C.3.3

Utility Permit Applications

Section J - Attachment 3

C.16.6

PWD-OUTAGE-

Section J - Attachment 4

Outage Request Form

Section J - Attachment 5

PWD-HYDRANT

CONNECTION-01

Section J - Attachment 6

H.11.12

PWD-

EXCAVATION-01

Section J - Attachment 7

H.11.12

Excavation Request Form

Section J - Attachment 8

Marathi Base Map

2015 & NSA GDM

Complete Jan2016

Section J - Attachment

JC6

C.6

Coefficient Schedule

Section J - Attachment 9

C.19

Environmental Checklist

Section J - Attachment 10

L.2

Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI)

Section J - Attachment 11

M

Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ)

Section J - Attachment 12

M

Construction and Design Experience

(End of Summary of Changes)