N3319123R90010002.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

See page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 61

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Feb-2023

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 N3319123R9001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jan-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Feb-2023

CODE

NAVFAC EURAFCENT - FEAD ROTA, SPAIN

PSC 819 BOX 26

FPO AE 09645-0026

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3319123R9001

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:

AMENDMENT 0002

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Updates Section 01 00 00 and adds the following sentence to paragraph 1.4:

or Engineers or Architects locally registered and licensed in Spain.

2. Updates Section 01 00 00 and adds the following paragraph to paragraph 14.8.1:

The contractor shall be responsible for the immediate removal of any contractor or subcontractor equipment or vehicles that become inoperable on the airfield. The contractor shall immediately remove inoperable equipment or vehicles to ensure no disruption to airfield operations. If the government is required to remove inoperable equipment or vehicles on the contractor’s behalf, the government shall not be held liable for damages caused to contractor’s inoperable equipment or vehicles.

3. Corrects Section 01 00 00 Paragraph 19.3.2 sub-paragraph 1 to read:

DoD Final Governing Standards for “Spain” vice “Greece”.

4. Updates Section 00 21 16 paragraph 5.5.2 changing “Section M” to “Section 00 22 16”.

5. Updates section 00 45 00 to add the provisions 252.223-7997 and 252.225-7059 by full text, and deletes the same two provisions that were added as a free-text. (These provisions were not available in the contract writing software at the time the solicitation was issued). Offeror’s may still submit these two provisions from Section 00 45 00 of the original solicitation.

6. Updates section 00 70 00 to add the clauses 252.223-7998 and 252.225-7060 by reference, and deletes the same two clauses that were added as free-text (These clauses were not available in the contract writing software at the time the solicitation was issued).

7. Extends the proposal due date by one day, to 2 Mar 2023, due to 28 Feb being a local holiday (Andalucía Day).

8. Provides responses to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) #4 – 13, response to #14 is still pending:

PPI

# Section Paragraph Page Question Response

4 00 21 16 9.2 17 of 99 In general, firms which have the fiscal year ending on 31 December 2022, do not have the financial statement audited by an independent external auditor by the proposal due date. Please, confirm if in this case, these companies can submit the financial statement for year 2022 but prepared by their own company.

Confirmed.

5 00 21 16 1 7 of 99 Will NAVFAC grant a 2-week proposal extension from completion of RFI responses.

No.

6 00 21 16 5.1 9 of 99 Does the Government expect all Factor 1 projects to have been either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build projects with a construction component, or are design only projects by our lead design firm allowable.

The vast majority of projects performed under the JOC are design-build, and some require some level of design. We do not execute design only projects using the JOC. Therefore to be relevant the projects should include construction.

7 00 21 16 5.1.7.3 9 of 99 Please confirm which Euorpean countries the NAVFAC EURAFCENT AOR consists of.

NAVFAC EURAFCENT's Area of Responsibility aligns with EUCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM.

The respective countries covered by each command can be view at the Europe, Africa, and Central Command's individual websites.

8 00 21 16 5.5.2 15 of 99

5.5.2 mentions a Section M of the solicitation although no such section is noted.

Corrected to read section "00 22 16" in this amendment

9 00 70 00 NA NA Will NAVFAC include FAR 52.216- 3 or 52.216-4 clauses to address large wholesale price fluctations in the commercial marketplace to both semi and standard materials

No.

10 01 10 00 1.4 60 of 99 General Requirements § 1.4 Permits and Licenses states "Engineers or architects shall be registered with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) or the American Institute of Architecture (AIA)." Please confirm that given the lessened design requirements of this JOC, vs. the MACC for instance, that a locally licensed Spanish design firm who lacks NCEES/AIA registration will be acceptable.

The paragraph 1.4. has been updated to add professionals locally registered and authorized in Spain.

11 01 10 00 5 67 of 99 Please confirm that RS Means hardcopies (3 sets) are still desired in lieu of electronic licenses to the on-line database.

Confirmed.

12 01 10 00 19.3.2 91 of 99 General Requirements § 19.3.2 Environmental Protection Plan mentions "DOD Final Governing Standards for GREECE." Should this be Spain instead?

The paragraph 19.3.2. has been corrected.

13a 00 21 16 5.1.7.2 9 of 99 If Task Orders or Definitive Contracts that are relevant projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP with a value between $150,000 and $1,000,000, are positive experience requirements, they should not be evaluated less favorably than those relevant projects that demonstrate JOC or other IDIQ experience. In addition, there are several task orders under attachment G that are very similar in scope and monetary value to the regular MACC or service task orders. Section 002116, 5.1.7.2 of the RFP limits the opportunity for selection and award to those offerors that have similar requirements to the solicitation under the MACC and Service task orders, but do not have JOC or IDIQ experience.

A Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) is also an IDIQ.

13b 00 21 16 5.1.7.2 9 of 99 We would request that the basis for evaluation of Factor 1 Experience be changed to Relevant projects that demonstrate task orders or services orders experience in order to eliminate this disadvantage.

The factor remains as stated in the RFP.

14 00 21 16 9 17 of 99 Please confirm if Joint Ventures with one member being an officially registered construction contractor by the Spanish Ministry of Finance will be acceptable for the Government's responsibility determination.

(Response pending)

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 28-Feb-2023 04:00 PM to 02-Mar-2023 04:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 16

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1. Proposal Due Date:

Proposals are due at the date and time specified in Block 13 A, on page #1 of the Standard Form 1442. If the due date is extended, it will be extended by Amendment.

2. Transmittal of Proposals:

2.1 Electronic copies of each volume shall be submitted through the Solicitation Module of the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) suite at https://piee.eb.mil/. Proposals submitted by mail or hand-carried will not be evaluated. Proposals sent through proprietary or third party File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites or DoD SAFE will not be retrieved. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm receipt of proposals. All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered except under facts and circumstances allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf.

Offerors must be registered with PIEE as a Proposal Manager in order to submit a proposal. Offerors are highly encouraged to complete the registration process in PIEE immediately, if the Offeror does not currently have access.

2.2 It is the Offeror’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation of receipt of all electronic files of the full proposal by the Contracting office. In the event that the Solicitation Module is down, the alternate method for proposal submission is via email to: William.j.hepler.civ@us.navy.mil and sean.m.duffy16.civ@us.navy.mil ONLY.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring electronic copies are virus-free and shall run an anti-virus scan before submission.

2.3 Electronic copies of each volume shall be compatible with the following software products: Adobe Acrobat Reader 2017 and Microsoft Office Suite 2016. Narrative portions of the proposal shall be in Adobe Acrobat portable document file (pdf) searchable text format. The Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files into the proposal files.

2.4 Electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item.

3. System for Award Management:

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management at the time of submission of the offer.

4. Format of Proposals:

4.1 Volume 1: Non-Price Proposal

4.1.1 Cover Letter. The cover letter shall include—

4.1.1.1 The solicitation number;

4.1.1.2 The name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses of the Offeror;

4.1.1.3 The Unique Entity ID and CAGE Code of the Offeror;

4.1.1.4 A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all services at the coefficient rates proposed;

4.1.1.5 Names, titles, and phone and email addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

4.1.1.6 Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority;

4.1.1.7 Identification of any potential organizational conflicts of interest; and

4.1.1.8 DFARS Clause 252.229-7001 Tax Relief does not have a corresponding provision. Therefore Offerors must state the Name of the Tax and Rate (percentage) that have been excluded from the contract price. This clause will be filled in by the Government upon award.

4.1.1.9 Joint Venture firms shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

4.1.2 Signed SF 1442 with blocks 14 though 20c completed;

4.1.3 A single file in PDF format containing a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) completed

Attachment A required for Factor 1, Experience;

4.1.4 A single file in PDF format containing the narrative required for Factor 2, Management Approach;

4.1.5 A single file in PDF format containing Attachment B required for Factor 3, Safety;

4.1.6 Individual or single files of CPARS and the associated narratives in PDF format and/or individual or single files of Attachment C in PDF format required for Factor 4, Past Performance.

4.2 Volume 2: Price Proposal:

4.2.1 Provide both a PDF version and a native excel version of the completed Attachment D required for the evaluation of Price;

4.2.2 Provide Financial Statements for the previous three years, and if applicable, letters from lending institutions attesting to the line of credit;

4.2.3 Provide any missing or outdated Representations and Certifications; and

4.2.4 Provide a completed version of Attachment F, Offeror Certification that it Meets Classification Requirements.

4.2.5 Provide a letter (or letters) from the firm’s financial institution(s) or surety stating the firm’s maximum annual capacity and overall capacity to obtain performance guarantees.

5. Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Factors:

5.1 Factor 1 – Experience: Offeror is defined as: The contractor submitting the proposal as offeror, including joint ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). If an offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate how the affiliate will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

5.1.1 Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a minimum of three (3) 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. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

5.1.1.1 Individual projects (Task Orders or Definitive Contracts) with a value between $150,000 and $1,000,000. (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).

5.1.1.2 Projects were for renovation, repair, maintenance, replacement, alteration, demolition, or new construction.

5.1.1.3 Projects that contained in-house design and/or the use of the contractor’s designer of record.

5.1.2 Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

5.1.3 A project is defined as a 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 should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

5.1.4 The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, do not submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design, but complete blocks 7 and 8 on the same form. 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 one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

5.1.5 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 RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

5.1.6 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 for the Joint Venture members. If a project was performed by a JV, and not all partners from that JV are on the JV proposed for this contract, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV member offering on this contract and shall not include work performed by the JV as a whole. The JV member proposed for this contract shall specifically address field work performed by that JV member including field staffing and direct field work oversight.

The JV member proposed for this contract shall also address home office management performed by that JV member including the number/percentage of employees provided for the overall contract by the JV members as well as the overall percentage of work performed by the JV member. The Offeror shall also submit a SIGNED copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

5.1.7 Basis of Evaluation:

5.1.7.1 The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated 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 RFP. The Government will only review five projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five will not be considered.

5.1.7.2 Relevant projects that demonstrate JOC or other IDIQ experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have JOC or IDIQ experience.

5.1.7.3 Relevant projects performed within Spain or other countries within the NAVFAC EURAFCENT area of responsibility (AOR) may be considered more favorably.

5.1.7.4 Projects where the Offeror was the prime contractor may be rated more favorably than projects where the Offeror was a subcontractor.

5.1.7.5 Experience self-performing relevant features of work may be considered more favorably.

5.1.7.6 Experience in performance of multiple projects and disciplines simultaneously may be considered more favorably.

5.2 Factor 2 – Management Approach:

5.2.1 Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

5.2.1.1 The Offeror’s response (excluding the organization chart) shall be a maximum ten (10) pages (8.5” x 11” or A4; one inch margins; Times New Roman size 11 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:

5.2.1.1.1. Provide an organizational chart demonstrating 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. There are no page limits or size limits for the organization chart.

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

5.2.1.1.3 Discuss the Offeror’s experience and approach to joint scoping work with the Government, to include examples of any previous joint-scoping efforts for urgent requirements.

5.2.1.1.4 Discuss the Offeror’s Quality Control program.

5.2.2 Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will include a subjective assessment of the proposed management approach and offeror’s responses to the submittal requirements for this factor.

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

5.2.2.1.1 A management approach that demonstrates adequate resources to manage multiple and simultaneous task orders (more than five (5)).

5.2.2.1.2 Effective use of subcontractors and/or in-house personnel in order to successfully accomplish projects.

5.2.2.1.3 Quick turnaround times on urgent requirements that includes the use of Joint Scoping.

5.2.2.1.4 A Quality Control program that maximizes the quality of workmanship.

5.3 Factor 3 – Safety:

5.3.1 Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

5.3.1.1 The Offeror shall submit the following information utilizing Attachment B: The Days Away from

Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below.

For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions. There is no page limit for the

DART or TCR information.

5.3.1.1.1 NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

5.3.1.2 DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, and CY2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

5.3.1.2.1 DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

5.3.1.2.2 Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝑫𝑨𝑹𝑻 𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬

Number of DART Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

5.3.1.3 TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, and CY2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

5.3.1.3.1 TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

5.3.1.3.2 Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝑻𝑪𝑹 𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬

Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

5.3.1.4 Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

5.3.1.4.1 Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management

System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

5.3.1.4.2 Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

5.3.1.4.3 Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

5.3.1.4.4 The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to three (3) single-sided pages overall, Times New Roman size 11 font.

5.3.1.5 The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

5.3.1.6 Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

5.3.1.6.1 DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

5.3.1.6.1.1 Missing data without an explanation may be considered a deficiency.

5.3.1.6.1.2 Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low

Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

5.3.1.6.1.3 An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

5.3.1.6.1.4 This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate

Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0

Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99

Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99

High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0

Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

5.3.1.6.2 TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

5.3.1.6.2.1 Missing data without an explanation may be considered a deficiency.

5.3.1.6.2.2 Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low

Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

5.3.1.6.2.3 An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

5.3.1.6.2.4 This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR Rate

Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49

Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49

Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49

High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99

Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

5.3.1.6.3 The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

5.3.1.6.3.1 Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

5.3.1.6.3.2 Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

5.3.1.6.3.3 Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

5.3.1.6.3.4 The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to three (3) single-sided pages overall. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

5.3.1.7 The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

5.4 Factor 4 – Past Performance:

5.4.1 Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

5.4.1.1 If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1 - Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, or if the evaluation was performed on the basic contract (vice the specific task order) then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Attachment C) for each project included in Factor 1 - Experience. The Offeror should provide completed PPQ(s) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. 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 the 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, William.j.hepler.civ@us.navy.mil.

5.4.1.2 Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

5.4.1.3 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.

5.4.2 Basis of Evaluation:

5.4.2.1 This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. 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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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.

5.4.2.2 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 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 RFP.

5.4.2.2.1 For purposes of this evaluation, a recent project is further defined as: Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this

RFP.

5.4.2.2.2 For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as stated under Factor 1 –

Experience

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

5.4.2.2.3.1 A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality, for ALL recent and relevant projects submitted with a Satisfactory or better performance rating AND that were completed within the scheduled period of performance.

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

5.4.2.2.3.3 Successful performance of recent and relevant projects/tasks that are identical to, or very similar to, the work anticipated under this solicitation.

5.4.2.3 Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Past performance ratings of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” hold more value than a “Neutral Confidence” rating and may be considered more favorably in the evaluation of past performance.

5.5 Price

5.5.1. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall complete and submit Attachment D, ELIN Schedule, with the proposed coefficients to be utilized in the contract. Exhibit Line Items (ELINs) 0001 through 0015 are for the base ordering period of 60 months. ELINS 1001 through 1015 are for the extension of service period, immediately following the base ordering period. ELINs 2001 through 2015 are for the Option Ordering Period of 36 months. ELINS 3001 through 3015 are for the extension of services period, immediately following the optional ordering period. ELINS 0016, 1016, 2016, and 3016 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 these ELINs. For projects that require a professional engineer’s stamp, these costs will be negotiated at the time of each task order. The offeror is to insert the proposed coefficients for all locations and all options, and multiply those coefficients by the respective Estimated Value of Work. The Total Estimate Amounts for each ELIN (excluding 0016, 1016, 2016, and 3016) will be added to obtain the Total Evaluated Price. The coefficients will become a part of the contract upon award and will be effective for the base period and all option periods.

5.5.2 Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price 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 Section 00 22 16 of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing, as described at FAR 15.404-1 (g)(2) and (g)(3). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

5.5.2.1 Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

5.5.2.2 Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

5.5.2.3 Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

6. Adjectival Ratings

6.1 Factor 1 – Experience, Factor 2 – Management Approach, and Factor 3 - Safety will be evaluated and assessed the adjectival ratings listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

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 (G)

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 (A)

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

Marginal (M)

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

Unacceptable (U)

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

6.2 Factor 4 – Past Performance will be evaluated and assessed the adjectival ratings for Relevancy and Performance Confidence listed in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

7. Relative Importance of Factors:

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

7.1 The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/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-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government.

8. Basis for Award:

8.1 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.

8.2 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.

8.3 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.

8.4 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.

8.5 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.

9. Pre-award Survey and Responsibility Determination 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 is required to demonstrate technical and financial solvency.

9.1 Technical Competency will be demonstrated through the Offeror’s past performance assessment, no additional information is required.

9.2 Provide the Offeror’s financial statement (F/S) for the most recent completed financial accounting year, and the preceding two years. Include the balance sheet and income statement. Include the cash flow statement if prepared.

The submission requirement in descending order of preference is:

9.2.1 Compiled, reviewed, or audited by an independent external auditor.

9.2.2 Company prepared F/S.

9.2.3 Accounting system generated F/S.

9.2.4 If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, provide information from the lending source that identifies the maximum lines of credit that will be available to include documentation to support the amounts. Provide translation in English, if applicable.

9.3 Verify that the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications include those listed in Section 00 45 00, including the most recent date. If the Representations and Certifications are not included or are not current, either update the profile in SAM or complete and submit the missing or outdated Representations and Certifications.

9.4 Each Offeror SHALL fill out and sign the certification provided at Attachment F and include it with its proposal, which will demonstrate capacity to work in Spain, under one of the methods listed below. Failure to submit such information may prevent the Government from being able to determine an offeror is responsible. That said, because this forms part of the Government’s responsibility determination, the Government may obtain additional information after submission of proposals, up until award, in accordance with FAR 9.105-1. If documentation is not in English, then offeror must provide an English translation of it to the Government.

9.4.1 Contractors participating in the contracting process must comply with the requirements of the Agreement of Defense Cooperation (ADC) between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain. Contractors may acquire a listing in the Official Register of Construction Contractors from the Spanish Ministry of Finance with appropriate classifications applicable to the type of project to be performed. If relying on such classifications, provide the required self-certification as part of your responsibility package. Such certificates must be held by the actual entity submitting the offer, reliance on subcontractor certificates will not be permitted. The minimum classification levels for this project are:

Group Sub-Group Category C 1,4,6 2 I 9 2 J 2,4,5 2 K 4 2

9.4.2 Non-Spanish offerors residing in other European Union countries may substitute the classification requirement by self-certifying their capacity to work through their parent country’s Mercantile/Industrial Official Registry.

9.4.3. Non-EU contractors may accredit their capacity to work by self-certifying the existence of a certification, issued by the contractor’s respective Spanish Permanent Diplomatic Mission or Consular office, certifying the contractor’s capacity to work.

9.5 Based on historical data, the number of orders that required performance guarantees varied from year to year;

but to ensure the contractor is capable of providing the highest historical amounts per year, the contractor must be capable of providing a minimum amount of $450,000 per year in performance guarantees. Offerors should bear in mind that the performance guarantees must be held through the warranty period, so the offeror may be required to carry approximately $900,000 in performance guarantees. Offerors are required to submit a letter from their financial institution(s) or surety that states the maximum annual performance guarantee amount and maximum performance guarantee amount overall. These maximum amounts shall be equal to or higher than the minimums specified above and should also take into account the offeror’s other work that requires performance guarantees.

Provide translation in English, if applicable.

SECTION 00 45 00 - REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

252.223-7997 PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN ITEMS CONTAINING PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONATE OR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID —REPRESENTATION (DEVIATION 2022-O0010) (SEP 2022)

(a) Effective April 1, 2023, in accordance with section 333 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) the Department of Defense may not procure any covered items that contain perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). A covered item is defined as:

(1) Nonstick cookware or cooking utensils for use in galleys or dining facilities; and

(2) Upholstered furniture, carpets, and rugs that have been treated with stain-resistant coatings.

(b) Representation. By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents that it is not providing as part of its offer any covered items containing PFOS or PFOA.

(End of provision)

252.225-7059 PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS FROM THE XINJIANG UYGHUR

AUTONOMOUS REGION - CERTIFICATION (DEC 2022)

(a) Definitions. Forced labor, person, and XUAR, as used in this provision, have the meaning given in the 252.225- 7060, Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, clause of this solicitation.

(b) Prohibition. DoD may not knowingly procure any products mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labor from XUAR or from an entity that has used labor from within or transferred from XUAR as part of any forced labor programs, as specified in paragraph (b) of the 252.225-7060, Prohibition on certain procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, clause of this solicitation.

(c) Certification.

(1) The Offeror does [ ] does not [ ] certify that the Offeror has made a good faith effort to determine that forced labor from XUAR was not or will not be used in the performance of a contract resulting from this solicitation.

(2) Offerors who do not certify having made a good faith effort will not be eligible for award.

(End of provision)

The following have been deleted:

252.223-7997 252.225-7059

SECTION 00 70 00 - CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

The following have been added by reference:

252.223-7998 (Dev) Prohibition on Procurement of Certain Items Containing

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate or Perfluorooctanoic Acid

(DEVIATION 2022-O0010)

SEP 2022

252.225-7060 Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

DEC 2022

The following have been deleted:

252.223-7998 252.225-7060

SECTION 01 00 00 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

SUMMARY OF WORK

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATION/WORK STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No. Title

1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

3 TASK ORDER PRICING

4 COEFFICIENTS

5 R. S. MEANS COST DATA

6 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT

7 IDENTIFICATION OF WORK AND TASK ORDER PREPARATION

8 REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL

9 ISSUANCE OF TASK ORDER

10 EXECUTION OF WORK

11 MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

12 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE OR BOND REQUIREMENTS

13 PARTNERING MEETINGS

14 WORK RESTRICTIONS

15 SCHEDULE

16 HEALTH AND SAFETY

17 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

18 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

19 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

20 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

21 FACILITY ELECTRONIC OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT INFORMATION

(eOMSI)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

Except where otherwise stated, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, and other items necessary to perform incidental design, renovations, repairs, maintenance, replacements, alterations, demolition, and NAVFAC Construction Category II, III, and IV tasks under this fixed-price Job Order Contract (JOC). 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.