AMD 01 - RFP N33191-23-R-9000 ROMANIA JOC- REV.1 Final.pdf

ACQR5854179

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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 68

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Dec-2022

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 N3319123R9000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Nov-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

The reason for this Amendment is to respond to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) and to extend the proposal due date from 17 January 2023 to 24 January 2023 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET). .

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. 13-Dec-2022

CODE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA CENTRAL

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:

N3319123R9000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

RFP N3319123R9000 AMD 01

The following is a summary of changes in the Request For Proposal. Full text including the below noted changes is found in the continuing pages. See attached the complete responses for PPIs submitted on 29 November 2022 through 13 December :

1- From:

PROPOSAL

The Proposal shall be submitted via email to Chirine Johnson at Chirine.johnson@eu.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at Alex.wingert@eu.navy.mil no later than January 17, 2023 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET).

To:

PROPOSAL

The Proposal shall be submitted via email to Chirine Johnson at chirine.elkaissijohnson.civ@us.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at alex.h.wingert.civ@us.navy.mil no later than January 24, 2023 at 14:00 Central European Time

(CET).

2- From:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI)

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to Chirine Johnson, Contract Specialist at chirine.johnson@eu.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at alex.wingert@eu.navy.mil .

To:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI)

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to Chirine Johnson, Contract Specialist at chirine.elkaissijohnson.civ@us.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at alex.h.wingert.civ@us.navy.mil .

3- From:

Sec. 002113/ Para. E.(a) PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS, Item 3) Letter from the offeror's bank/surety

To: Letter from the offeror's bank/surety verify the offeror has at least $2M in aggregate capacity for bonds or performance guarantees.

4- From:

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PEFORMANCE

F.1 LOCATION

The work shall be located at Naval Support Facility Deveselu, Romania.

To:

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PEFORMANCE

F.1 LOCATION

The work shall be located at Naval Support Facility Deveselu, Romania. The contract must maintain flexibility to complete work at Craiova Airport if need arises. It is likely that all work will occur within the boundaries of the American military installation at Deveselu.

5- From:

C.5.3 The order of precedence for use of the R. S. MEANS books is as follows:

1. Facilities Construction Cost Data;

2. Repair and Remodeling Cost Data;

To:

C.5.3 Data from all of the following book titles may be used and is equally valid without any order of precedence:

Building Construction Costs Book; Assemblies Costs Book; Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs Book;

Electrical Costs Book; Plumbing Costs Book; Mechanical Costs Book; or, the Contractor may used pre-priced cost data from RS Means Data Online.

6- From:

FACTOR 2, MANAGEMENT APPROACH:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

8. Discuss the Offeror’s QA/QC program.

To: 8. Discuss the Offeror’s QC program.

A revised Attachment A- Pre-Proposal Inquiry Responses is available on SAM.gov.

The proposal due date has been extended from 17 January 2023 to 24 January 2023 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET).

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The delivery order minimum quantity 1.00 has been added.

SECTION 00 21 13 - INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS

PROPOSAL

The Proposal shall be submitted via email to Chirine Johnson at chirine.elkaissijohnson.civ@us.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at alex.h.wingert.civ@us.navy.mil no later than January 24, 2023 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET). Hand carried proposals will be NOT be accepted. Submit the Proposal with the following subject line:

“SOLICITATION N3319123R9000 ROMANIA JOC PRICE 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.

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, 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, Past Performance

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.

SITE VISIT

There will not be a site visit.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI)

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to Chirine Johnson, Contract Specialist at chirine.elkaissijohnson.civ@us.navy.mil and Alex Wingert at alex.h.wingert.civ@us.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 (formerly FBO) website www.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 A.

AMENDMENTS

Amendments will be posted to the Contract Opportunities (FBO) website www.sam.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the www.sam.gov website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. All Amendments SHALL be acknowledged 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, Central."

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."

EVALUATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

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

2. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract 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. 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.

3. The tradeoff 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.

4. As stated in the solicitation, all technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. 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. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

a. Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

b. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

C. SAFETY EVALUATION

Safety will be a stand-alone evaluation criterion in this solicitation. The safety evaluation is described under the Non-Price Factor 3 and consists of the Technical Approach to Safety.

D. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

2. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

The third is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

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 no less than $50,000. (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.

3. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the relevancy ratings in the following table shall be used:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will review all past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s overall record of performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.”

5. Performance Confidence Assessment. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the SSEB shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

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 is 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.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is as follows: Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor, Factor 4. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (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.

3. 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 Coefficients 1 through 4 on the Coefficient Schedule, provided as an attachment to the solicitation (Attachment B). Failure to offer a coefficient for Coefficients 1 through 4 will result in the offeror being ineligible for award. 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 insert a proposed coefficient, which will be multiplied by the Example Value for Coefficients 1 through 4. The Example Value for Coefficients 1 – 4 are to be added together to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

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; SAM UEI Number and CAGE or NCAGE Code of the Offeror, in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), provide a SAM UEI 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 bank/ surety verify the offeror has at least $2M in aggregate capacity for bonds or performance guarantees. The letter is to verify the offeror has sufficient financial resources to meet the performance guarantee requirements of this contract.

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). The TEP consists of the basic requirements and all option items. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices received in response to the RFP;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with the Government Estimate;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with available historical information;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with market average.

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

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

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) examples of recent and relevant projects that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience. Offerors shall utilize Attachment C – Project Sheet, 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” or A4; 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 no less than $50,000. (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.

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 five (5) projects are submitted, only the most recent five 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 five (5) projects combined.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include an 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:

1. Experience working on JOC contracts.

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

3. Experience within NAVFACSYSCOM Romania area of responsibility 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 performance of multiple projects and disciplines simultaneously.

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

9. 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 maximum ten (10) pages (8.5” x 11” or A4; 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.2.6 (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 the Offeror’s QC program.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will include an assessment of 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. Effective use of subcontractors or in-house personnel in order to successfully accomplish projects.

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

4. Quick turnaround times on last minute requirements that includes the use of Joint Scoping.

5. A QA/QC program to maximize quality of workmanship.

FACTOR 3, SAFETY:

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” or A4; 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’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, NAVFACSYSCOM’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:

IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH

THE PROPOSAL FOR EACH PROJECT THE OFFEROR INCLUDES IN ITS PROPOSAL FOR

FACTOR 1. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. AN OFFEROR

SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment D), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Chirine Johnson, via email at chirine.elkaissijohnson.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date.

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

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment D.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

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

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to 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 – Pre-Proposal Inquiry Log Attachment B – Coefficient Schedule Attachment C – Project Data Sheet Attachment D – Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment J – Table of Forms for compliance with General Requirements

Attachment J Form Specification Item Description Section J – Form 1 C.16.21 Excavation Permit Request Form Section J – Form 2 C.14.3 PWD Road/Parking/Utility Outage Request Form Section J – Form 3 C.14.6 Base Access Request Form for Personnel Section J – Form 4 C.14.6 AAMDS Access Request Form for Personnel Section J – Form 5 C.14.8 Base Access Request Form for Devices Section J – Form 6 C.14.6 NSF Deveselu Background Investigation Form - ENG Section J – Form 7 C.14.8 Vehicle Access Request Form Section J – Form 8 C.21.5 eOMSI Facility Data Workbook

SECTION 00 70 00 - CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

The following have been added by reference:

52.204-23 Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and

Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities

NOV 2021

252.203-7002 Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights SEP 2013

SECTION 01 00 00 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

STATEMENT OF WORK

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATION/WORK STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No. Title

C.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

C.2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

C.3 TASK ORDER PRICING

C.4 COEFFICIENTS

C.5 R. S. MEANS COST DATA

C.6 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT

C.7 IDENTIFICATION OF WORK AND TASK ORDER PREPARATION

C.8 REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL

C.9 ISSUANCE OF TASK ORDER

C.10 EXECUTION OF WORK

C.11 MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

C.12 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE OR BOND REQUIREMENTS

C.13 PARTNERING MEETINGS

C.14 WORK RESTRICTIONS

C.15 SCHEDULE

C.16 HEALTH AND SAFETY

C.17 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

C.18 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

C.19 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

C.20 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

C.21 FACILITY ELECTRONIC OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT INFORMATION

(eOMSI)

C.22 ROMANIA VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

C.1 General Information Except where otherwise stated, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to perform renovations, repairs, maintenance, replacements, alterations, demolition, and NAVFAC construction category III, and IV Firm Fixed Price (FFP) tasks awarded under this FFP, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Job Order Contract (JOC). This is a NAVFAC Construction Contract for Job Order Contract (JOC) work within the country of Romania; most of which will occur in and around Naval Support Facility Deveselu near the city of Caracal.

Specific site locations shall be stated in individual task orders.

Individual Task Order requests will provide Government performance requirements and standards. The Contractor is required to comply with all applicable U.S. federal and local host nation laws and regulations. All work performed shall conform to the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFACSYSCOM) Guide Specifications, standard industry work practices, and the provisions of this contract. In accordance with NAVFAC instructions, Whole Building Design Guide and (UFGS 01 78 24.00 20 and UFGS 01 78 23 electronic Operation and Maintenance Support Information (eOMSI) processes and data shall be provided for all applicable projects.

Unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer or his/her designated representative, all work must be in accordance with 2022 DOD Building Code (UFC 1-200-01) and all referenced standards therein including 2021 International Building Code (IBC), 2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC), and the latest versions of UFC 3-410-01, UFC 3-420-01, UFC 3-600-01, UFC 1-200-02, and UFC 3-501-01. Standards referenced in the UFC are included by reference including the International Mechanical Code (IMC), International Plumbing Code (IPC), Fire Code (NFPA 1), Life Safety Code (NFPA 101), International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), International Green Construction Code (IgCC), National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) and International Residential Code (IRC), latest versions. In accordance with UFC 1-200-01, all work must be in accordance with the Core UFCs (Unified Facilities Criteria) as relevant to the individual task orders. All Core UFCs are identified in UFC 1- 200-01 (DOD Building Code). All industrial references and standards referenced in Core UFCs are incorporated by reference.

These Codes take precedence over all other direction provided herein or as part of individual Task Orders.

C.1.1 Contract Type and Term This is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a one-year base period plus four one-year option periods. The Government may exercise option periods at its discretion. Individual FFP Task Orders issued hereunder shall specify delivery or performance requirements. Typically, projects will be within the minimum/ maximum dollar range of $2,000 to $2,000,000. Work ordered under this contract will not require the Contractor to provide design and/or engineering services, except in limited applications under design-build provisions outlined within the solicitation. All Task Order work will require scope development by the Contractor. In select cases, the Government will provide design or basis for design. The Contractor may be required to provide narratives, sketches, material catalog cuts, and quantity take-off with each Task Order proposal to ensure common understanding. Pricing for each Task Order will be by pre-priced (R.S.MEANS Cost Data) and non-pre-priced methods.

C.1.2 Basic Principles of the JOC A major element of the JOC process is the use of applying a coefficient (multiplier) to proposal costs for specific Category III through IV construction and repair tasks. The coefficient must include not only the Contractor’s overhead and profit, but also all other costs associated with doing business that are not represented in the R. S.

MEANS bare costs or in Subcontractor’s proposals.

For each project, the Government and the Contractor follow the same steps:

1. Conduct a Joint Scope Meeting at the site to review and discuss the work and the construction schedule;

2. Prepare a Detailed Scope of Work;

3. Government issues a Request for Proposal;

4. Contractor prepares a price proposal in the format requested and submits a proposed construction schedule, list of Subcontractors and other documents required by the Task Order;

5. Government reviews the proposal to ensure the right tasks and quantities were used;

6. Government and Contractor negotiate price and schedule

7. If Government is in…