N33191-24-R-9007-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to repond to PPIs received; as w ell as, extend the proposal due date.

All other solicitation provisions and clauses remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 64

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-May-2024

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 N3319124R9007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Apr-2024

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-May-2024

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:

N3319124R9007

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 0001 PPI & RESPONSES

1. Factor 4- Past Performance states "IF A COMPLETED CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS) EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE FOR A PRIOR PROJECT IDENTIFIED

IN ITS PROPOSAL FOR FACTOR 1, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL." Please advise if Offerors may submit completed interim CPARS evaluations for projects selected in Factor 1.

a. Offerors may submit completed interim CPARS evaluations for projects selected in Factor 1 only if no final CPARS evaluation exists for that project. If a final report exists then do not submit an interim report.

2. Request the Government exclude the Organization chart from the page count.

a. Confirmed the organization chart will not be counted in the page count for Factor 2.

3. The Proposal shall be submitted via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) solicitation module available at https://piee.eb.mil/ no later than April 12, 2024 at 14:00 Central European Time (CET) unless this closing date is later extended by amendment." Request the Government amend this date to reflect the proposal due date shown in SF1442, box 13 (06 May 2024, 10.00am).

a. Section revised, please see amended solicitation.

4. Solicitation page 57 of 103 (SOW, C.2.6.1.2) and pdf 95 of 103 (F.8/F.9) states the SSHO may not assume additonal duties or serve as the superintendent. However, SOW, C.16.7 on pdf page 72 of 103 states "The site superintendent meeting the qualifications described below may perform the duties of Task Order SSHO."

Request the Government allow the site superintendent perform dual-hatted duties as long as the site superintendent meet the requirements listed in SOW C.16.7.

a. Concur recommend C.2.6.1.2. (SSHO) reflect C.16.7 Task Order SSHO and site superintendent meeting listed qualifications/requirements can perform duties.

5. Request the Government confirm the time zone for proposal submission is Central European Time (CET).

a. The time zone for proposal submission is Central European Summer Time.

6. To ensure Offerors provide substantial information within the page constraints in Volume II, Factors 1-3 to respond to solicitation requirements, we respectfully request using Time New Roman, font size 10.

a. Section revised, please see amended solicitation.

7. Request the Governement confirm that Offerors can use A4-sized paper for Vol I and Volume II proposal responses.

a. Confirm Offerors may submit proposals on A4 stock.

8. Due to the upcoming holiday in Europe and the unavailability of personnel, respectfully request the Government extend the proposal due date by 1 week.

a. Proposal due date revised, please see amended solicitation.

9. Please advise if Offerors can use/receive credit for previously completed PPQs for projects identified for Factor

1.

a. Offerors may submit previously completed PPQs; however, they should be recent and relevant.

10. Please clarify which proposal volume/section Offerors should insert Letters of Commitment.

a. As per Section 00 21 13 Instructions to Bidders, please include Letters of Commitment with/in Volume II – Non Price Proposal, Factor 1

11. Will Past Performance projects performed by JV where the Offeror was an equal partner be recognized as relevant Past Performance?

a. Confirmed, prior projects performed by a JV in which the Offeror was a partner may be submitted for consideration but should also be accompanied by the supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, letter of commitment, and/or explanation of the Offeror’s meaningful involvement in the JV’s work as stated under Factor 1 in the solicitation.

12. We respectfully request a two-week extension of the proposal due date to May 20; 2024. Time extension is needed to thoroughly review specifications and R.S. MEANS current cost data.

a. Proposal date revised, please see amended solicitation.

13. Would the government consider any of the following certifications as acceptable alternatives to the CSP Certification? 1. NEBOSH International General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety 2. IOSH Managing Safely or IOSH Working Safely certification 3. OSHA 30-Hour Safety Training

a. No. CSPs shall be the safety and occupational health "competent person" as defined by USACE EM

385-1-1, Safety and Health Requirements Manual

14. The offer is to be delivered no later than 06MAY2024. In Poland, 01st and 03rd of May are Bank Holidays.

Most of the companies and subcontractors will also be off the 02nd of May, and probably 29th and 30th of April too.

This fact threatens our capacity to collect all the necessary information on-time.

Due to the strategical importance of this contract, and the tight schedule consequence of the circumstances exposed, we kindly request a time extension for the offer delivery.

a. Proposal date revised, please see amended solicitation.

15. As we prepare our proposal for the RFP, we would like to suggest a modification to the Basis of Evaluation.

Currently, the criteria predominantly favor experience with JOC contracts. We propose the evaluation criteria to be expanded, to equally recognize experience with IDIQ contracts, such as MACC contracts. This inclusion would ensure that projects executed under MACC contracts are accorded the same level of relevance as Task Orders under JOC contracts.

By broadening the scope of recognized contract types to include IDIQ/MACC alongside JOC, competition would be enhanced by enabling a more comprehensive assessment of all offerors' capabilities. Therefore, this adjustment would not only benefit us, but also the Government.

a. The evaluation criteria, as currently written, will not be revised.

16. As we continue our preparations for the upcoming RFP, we would like to propose an amendment to the current evaluation criteria.

Specifically, we suggest that ongoing projects which exceed the threshold of 50,000 euros be eligible for consideration in the evaluation process. This change would appropriately acknowledge the significant contributions of Contractors who are currently engaged in long-term initiatives within the project area.

Incorporating ongoing projects into the evaluation criteria would offer a comprehensive view of the contractors' active involvement and sustained investment in the local infrastructure.

This adjustment would enhance the evaluation process by providing a clearer picture of each Contractor's current capabilities and commitment to the region.

a. Please see response to question 15.

17. We would like to understand whether a project executed under a previous Joint Venture (JV), of which we were participating, would be considered as relevant as projects executed solely under our offeror name, or if it would be deemed less relevant for the purposes pf evaluation in this RFP.

a. Prior projects performed by a JV in which the Offeror was a partner may be submitted for consideration but should also be accompanied by the supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, letter of commitment, and/or explanation of the Offeror’s meaningful involvement in the JV’s work as stated under Factor 1 in the solicitation.

18. “…..plus any applicable interest, to the United States Government, upon demand by the Contracting Officer.”

Question:

Please inform us, how the "legal interest" will be calculated regarding the currency rate, amount/percentage, and value adjustment applied for the required legal interest. What is the legal basis of “legal interest” liability? Will the "legal interest" be calculated also for period stipulated for payment? Please consider removal “legal interest” from the text of guarantee. This amount will probably be immaterial for the quality of performance bond but it is a source of significant uncertainty and seems to be blocking point on the guarantors side.

a. This refers to interest that may be added in the case of the guarantor delaying payment after a

Contracting officer's request for payment of the guarantee. If it were to ever apply, such interest due to the Government would be calculated pursuant to the requirements of U.S Federal Laws

19. “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.”

Question:

We have been informed that, due to technical/system reasons, banks located in the Republic of Poland are not able to process payments by check. Therefore, we kindly request the addition of the following content to PG:

“… payment to the Contracting Office by wire transfer or by other agreed upon form payable to the United States of America by the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe, Africa, Central.”

a. Please see revised Section 00 21 13 – Instructions to Bidders.

20. Question:

Please confirm that the letter of guarantee may be also issued by an Insurance Company (not only by a bank).

a. Confirmed a letter of guarantee may also be issued by an insurance company.

21. Question:

Law of which country will govern letter of guarantee? Is it possible to deliver this document governed by Polish law or other European country?

a. US Federal Law only, will govern.

22. “…within five (5) calendar days after receipt of a simple written request by registered mail….”

Could the terms of LG provide for working days and not calendar days? Could you please extend payout from LG up 10 working days?

a. This language will be changed to "...within five (5) working days after receipt of a simple written request by certified mail...

23. “….receipt of a simple written request by registered mail, return receipt”…”

How shall the Financial Institution know that the person signing the demand for payment is duly authorized?

By whom and how the Financial Institution should be informed, who is the Contracting Officer?

The Letter of Guarantee doesn't allow any verification of signatures of the Contracting Officer. Please confirm that the Financial Institution must accept any signature indicating only the function of the signatory "the Contracting Officer".

Could your bank or notary verify authorization and authenticity of signature of Contracting Officer signing a demand? Could the demand for payment be presented only in original?

a. Sureties may reasonably request verification.

24. Question: Please accept wording of letter of guarantee specified below:

a. The proposed revisions are acceptable EXCEPT for the number of days till due and the removal of any interest that may also be due. Refer to amended solicitation.

25. Please confirm that the 2 data cost books listed in section 5.3 will be used in pricing proposals during the contract (in Pre-Priced Works). The other price books available on the R.S. MEANS Company website will not be used.

a. Section 5.3 has been revised. Confirmed that the books listed in Section 5.3 will be used in pricing proposals.

26. Section 5.3 of the specification mentions a data cost book “2. Repair and Remodeling Cost Data” which is not available in R.S. MEANS Company store. Please confirm that it will be required in the execution of the contract.

a. Section 5.3 has been revised, please refer to amended solicitation.

27. “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.”

Question:

Who will notify the issuer of the guarantee that the work has been accepted by the US government and – consequently - the guarantee has expired?

What document and by whom signed will confirm that the guarantee has expired?

a. An official letter signed by the contracting officer will be issued to the bank/insurer notifying them that all work under the contract is complete and the guarantee can be returned.

28. Please advise which unit rates we should use for RS means for project work in NSF Redzikowo.

a. Use the bare cost data in RS Means. If the Contractor feels that an area cost factor applies, then it should be included in the coefficient that the Contractor proposes with their bid.

29. Please clarify which unit price/cost from R.S. Means proposal will be multiplied by the proposed coefficient:

“Extended Total” or “Extended Total O&P”.

a. The extended total will be multiplied by the proposed coefficient.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 06-May-2024 10:00 AM to 13-May-2024 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 13 - INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS

PROPOSAL

The Proposal shall be submitted via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) solicitation module available at https://piee.eb.mil/ no later than May 13, 2024 at 10:00 Central European Summer Time (CET) unless this closing date is later extended by amendment. Hand carried proposals will be NOT be accepted. Submit the Proposal with the following subject line:

“SOLICITATION N3319124R9007 POLAND JOC PROPOSAL”

Each uploaded attachment to PIEE can be up to 1.9GB in size. Please note spaces or other special characters are not allowed in the filename. Prior to uploading the file, please remove spaces and special characters or replace with underscores '_’. If you need to submit more than one file, files shall be numbered in successive order i.e. 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.

Each offeror’s Proposal shall consist of two (2) separate parts or volumes – i.e. a Price Proposal and a Non-Price Proposal. No pricing shall be included in the Non-Price Proposal.

The PRICE PROPOSAL (Volume I) 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 (Volume II) 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 full 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 Paul Martha, Contract Specialist at paul.m.martha.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 both System for Award Management (SAM) website www.sam.gov and PIEE. 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 both SAM and PIEE. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check www.sam.gov 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. 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. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

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.

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

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 significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, 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 (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 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-price factor.

a. Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

b. Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

e. Uncertainty: any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear

(e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

f. 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

1. 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).

3. 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 shall 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 third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304[c][2]). 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. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating using the confidence assessment rating, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

4. 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.

5. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as an effort involving the same or similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires. Prior projects must at a minimum demonstrate:

a. 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); and

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

6. 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.

7. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality 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.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated selection criteria.

8. Performance Confidence Assessment. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the Government 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 are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

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 FACTOR (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 non-price 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; Unique Entity ID Number and CAGE or NCAGE Code of the Offeror; and a Unique Entity ID Number for each member of the JV.

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

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

4) Completed Coefficient Schedule.

5) A bulleted list, identifying all cost factor categories included in your coefficient. At a minimum, your coefficient is to include the cost elements identified in the General Requirements, Paragraph C.4 and its subparagraphs. This narrative is limited to one (1) 8.5” x 11” page, one inch margins, Times New Roman no larger than 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).

Price 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”; one inch margins; times new roman no larger than 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 an effort involving the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Prior projects must at a minimum demonstrate:

a. 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. Be 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 shall 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 Poland 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:

Offeror’s response to Factor 2 shall be a maximum ten (10) pages (8.5” x 11” or A4; one inch margins;

times new roman no larger than 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 shall clearly show management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. At a minimum the organization chart must display key personnel. Workforce management plan shall 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 QA/QC program.

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, only one safety narrative is required but it shall address each partner contractor or joint venture member.

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 no larger than size 12 font). If more than two (2) pages are submitted, only the first two (2) pages will be reviewed in the 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…