P114_Draft_Solicitation.pdf

NAVFAC WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, WASHINGTON, DC

Date: 24 February, 2017

To: Interested Parties

Subject: P114, Medical Center Addition/Alteration (MCAA), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Bethesda, MD.

Attached is a draft solicitation for the P114, Medical Center Addition/Alteration (MCAA), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Bethesda, MD MILCON, which consists of constructing a new addition for in-patient and out-patient medical care (approximately 590,000 GSF), renovation of two (2) existing hospital buildings (approximately 125,000 GSF), and demolition of six (6) existing hospital buildings (approximately 330,000 GSF).

NOTE: This project will be separated into two packages resulting in two standalone construction contracts.

Package 1 is new construction and will consists of three components; construction of a below grade tunnel, construction of a base communication center and the installation of a base emergency generator system. These components are currently referenced as Phase 1A, Phase 1B and Phase 1C and some details from Package 5.

Package 2 will consists of the remaining balance of the project.

For purposes of this draft solicitation and industry day, we will be focusing on Package 2.

To ensure this project is executed in the most effective manner possible, NAVFAC Washington is seeking industry input by (1) issuing a draft solicitation for interested parties to review and comment, and (2) holding a pre-solicitation industry conference to obtain further information and encourage industry participation. In an effort to keep the focus on the project at this stage, the attached draft solicitation includes, among other sections, the draft Statement of Work (SOW) and Evaluation Criteria. The draft solicitation is intended to provide an opportunity for industry’s feedback into the tentative design of the proposed project and the supporting procurement. Your questions and input will be the basis of a pre-solicitation industry conference NAVFAC Washington anticipates holding.

The conference is designed to 1) clarify the intent of the project; 2) respond to industry questions; and 3) provide interested parties an additional avenue to explore potential partnering opportunities to best fulfill the needs of the project. Attendance at the Industry Day is voluntary.

A date/location of Industry Day will be determined at a later date and issued via modification.

NAVFAC Washington will be requesting industry feedback and questions prior to the conference, as detailed below.

1. Draft Solicitation Response Submission Instructions

All inquiries about this draft solicitation and/or input/recommendations to contribute to the effectiveness of the project and the supporting procurement must be made in writing and emailed to Lindsay Naill at lindsay.naill@navy.mil. A cut-off date for providing input will be established in the modification.

2. Pre-solicitation Industry Day Information

TBD

Should you have any questions, you may contact Lindsay Naill (Lindsay.naill@navy.mil). We thank you in advance for your input and participation!

Attachment: Draft Solicitation

Draft Solicitation

P114, Medical Center Addition/Alteration (MCAA), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Bethesda, MD.

NAVFAC Washington 1314 Harwood Street

Washington Navy Yard, BLDG 212 Washington, DC 20374

1.0 STATEMENT OF NEED

The purpose of this Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 MILCON Program, Project Number P114 is to improve the WRNMMC to world class hospital standards. The project will construct a new addition for in-patient and out-patient medical care, renovate the existing hospital Buildings 9 and 10, provide information systems, and provide appropriate antiterrorism measures. This renovation and addition to WRNMMC will provide wounded warriors, active duty military personnel, and their families with world-class healthcare services based on the principles of evidence-based design.

Specific goals of the project include provision of single-bed patient rooms, promotion of family-centered care, use of natural light wherever possible, and the establishment of clear way finding for patients, families, visitors and staff. The project will right-size facility spaces, modernize architectural and engineering systems, improve clinical-to-support adjacencies, and provide a functional area for the Women's Center and the Ambulatory Surgery suites. The project will also meet the requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard and integrate the latest medical technologies throughout the medical center infrastructure. Buildings 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 100 of the main hospital complex will be demolished.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

P114, Medical Center Addition/Alteration (MCAA), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Bethesda, MD. P114 project consists of constructing a new addition for in-patient and out-patient medical care (approximately 590,000 GSF), renovation of two (2) existing hospital buildings (approximately 125,000 GSF), and demolition of six (6) existing hospital buildings (approximately 330,000 GSF). Construction will require provision of information systems, ATFP measures, and appropriate setbacks for natural light. Supporting facilities include utilities, paving, site improvements, special foundations, and environmental mitigation. The project will be constructed in accordance with UFC 4-510-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, UFC 4-010-01, Section 1-8.7, Barrier Free Design in accordance with DoD criteria and DEPSECDEF Memorandum “Access for People with Disabilities” dated 31 October 2008, evidence based design principles, MHS World Class Checklist Requirements, and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, UFC 1-200-02.

3.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The completion date is 1825 calendar days from notice to Proceed (NTP)

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Experience

Factor 2 – Construction Management Plan Factor 3 – Safety

Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4.A. – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4.B. – Small Business Participation Factor 5 – Past Performance

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, 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.

The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors is the technical factors 1,2,3, and 4 and their respective subfactors are of equal importance to each other, respectively, and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor, Factor 5. 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 significantly more important than price.

For purposes of determining the technical rating for Factor 4, Subfactors 4.A and 4.B are equal to each other.

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. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

Non-Price Factors

Factor 1 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Construction Experience: Submit a maximum of four (4) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates 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 large, complex multi-phase medical facilities with critical and diverse services that was executed within an occupied medical campus that must remain operational during construction. Critical and diverse services can include a combination of at least three and/or all of the following areas:

Surgery, Labor, Delivery, Recovery, Postpartum (LDRP), in-patient services, Intensive Care Units (ICU), Imaging, Laser Vision, and Critical Care areas. Projects must collectively demonstrate experience of renovation and new construction.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP or shall be at least 50% complete with construction for ongoing projects.

A project is defined as a single construction project in a stand-alone contract, or a single task order project under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) 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.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP in a narrative form.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for all Joint Venture members (1 project minimum per member). Offerors are still limited to a total of four (4) projects combined.

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

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated collective experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the RFP. 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 evaluate a maximum of four projects for construction. If the Offeror submits more than four

(4) projects for evaluation, then the Government will evaluate the first four (4) in the order submitted and disregard any other project information after the first four (4).

Strengths may be warranted for relevant projects that demonstrate any of the following:

• Construction in constrained sites (sites with limited access, limited staging area or adjacent to occupied spaces).

• Facilities located in sensitive, historic surroundings.

• Projects that include relocation of active telecommunications infrastructure including switching equipment.

• Projects that demonstrate medical equipment installation to include MRI Imaging and

Operating Room equipment.

Factor 2 – Construction Management Plan

Submit a detailed Plan (narrative), which shall not exceed five (5) double-sided pages (or ten

(10) single-sided pages). Page limitations shall exclude resumes.

The Offeror must include the following information within the construction management plan:

i. Management Structure. Narratively describe the roles, the lines of authority, and the responsibilities of each entity described in paragraphs iii & iv below. Identify personnel who will have negotiation authority and approval of agreements that are reached between the Government and Contractor. Identify any limitations to this authority, if any exist.

ii. Teaming Relationships. If applicable, provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement as the prime. Provide the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms. The narrative shall also include the lines of authority between the entities.

If Joint Ventures exist, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a Joint Venture agreement, Limited Partnerships (LTD) agreement, and/or Limited Liability Companies (LLC) agreement for the proposed Prime contractor (It is noted that Teaming arrangements are not considered Joint Venture agreements). Clearly and explicitly identify the managing partner or majority holder in the agreement, if a managing partner or majority holder does exist.

iii. Quality Control and Safety. Describe how quality control and safety will be integrated into your proposed teaming approach, as well as each firms’ involvement in quality control and safety throughout the project.

iv. Schedule. Provide a schedule-(a graphic timeline (50 activities maximum))-using Microsoft Project, Primavera PE, or Primavera SureTrak software. The proposal shall clearly show the logic and sequence of events necessary for the successful execution of the total project and each milestone. The schedule must correspond to the nodal diagram included in specification 01 32 17.00 20 COST-LOADED NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES (NAS). Provide durations for each task in calendar days, from contract award through contract completion. The overall contract period must not exceed the contract duration provided in the RFP. All days on the schedule should be in "calendar days". Include the time/duration of construction required to accomplish the base bid, and the time/duration required to accomplish each individual option.

v. Key Personnel. Submit a resume for each of the following team members. Resumes shall include current employer, professional licenses and certifications, number of years of experience, firms they have worked for, a list of relevant projects (two or more) that they have completed, and a list of projects that they have worked on including their role on these projects. Resumes shall include at least two (2) references that can vouch for recent work performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the references. Resumes for each individual shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

See specific personnel positions below for resume requirements.

• Project Manager and Management Staff – See specification 01 30 00 for detailed staffing qualifications.

• Construction/Project Management Staff– See specification 01 30 00 for detailed staffing qualifications.

• Project Supervision and Engineering Staff– See specification 01 30 00 for detailed staffing qualifications.

• Quality Control Manager and Management Staff -See specifications 01 45 00.00 20 for detailed staffing qualifications.

• Site Safety and Health Officers (SSHOs) & Alternate SSHOs - See specification

01 35 26 for detailed staffing qualifications (minimum).

• Project Scheduler - See specifications 01 32 00, 01 32 01.00 10, or 01 32 17.00 20 for detailed staffing qualifications (minimum).

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s Construction Management Plan will be used as a means to evaluate organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror, in order to gauge likelihood for successful project execution. In addition, the Offeror will be evaluated for degree of compliance with requirements discussed above and in the specifications, including organizational effectiveness, level of experience and expertise, optimization of quality control, safety, and minimization of risk. Greater levels of experience, especially related to complex medical projects, may be viewed more favorably. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed schedule to the overall contract duration provided in the RFP, as a means of determining whether the contractor understands the scope of work, approaches the tasks in a logical and effective manner, and thoroughly understands the required phased construction.

Factor 3 – Safety

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each Contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the three (3) (2014, 2015, 2016) previous complete calendar years, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three (3) year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

For the three (3) (2014, 2015, 2016) previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages.

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 Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, if any, and innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases. 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:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization

Factor 4 consists of two Subfactors, 4.A, Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 4.B, Small Business Participation. The evaluation of Subfactors 4.A and 4.B are of equal importance to the determination of Factor 4 Rating.

Definitions: “SB” as used herein, is intended to include Small Business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business concerns (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business concerns (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business concerns (HUBZone), Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (SDVOSB). All small business programs are self-certifying programs with the exception of HUBZone certifications, see HUBZone SB Certifications below. Small Business Program requirements and definitions may be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 19.

HUBZone SB Certifications: Offerors are reminded that HUBZone SB concerns must obtain formal certification from the Small Business Administration (SBA) if they expect to receive the evaluation benefits associated with the HUBZone SB programs either as a prime or subcontractor(s). For more information on the HUBZone SB certification requirements and available benefits, contact your local SBA representative. Certified HUBZone SB firms are listed on the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) website at http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to periodically check the DSBS as certifications are subject to change.

SUBFACTOR 4.A – PAST PERFORMANCE IN UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERNS

Proposals that do not include responses addressing ALL elements of the requirements stated below (a. through d.) must include an explanation why that element is not addressed.

a. Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s projects referenced under Factor 5, Past Performance. Recently completed project evaluations are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project evaluations, interim ratings for projects that are 50% complete may be considered. If more than four evaluation ratings are provided, only the first four will be considered.

In addition, the Government may consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources (such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support Systems (CCASS)), Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

b. Provide small business subcontracting history. Large businesses with Federal prime contracting experience shall provide final or current Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts (SF294) or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR's) on prime (only) contracts submitted under Factor 5, Past Performance. If Factor 5 submitted contracts are not prime contracts, submit SF294s or ISRs for contracts of similar scope performed as the prime contractor. If goals were not met on any submitted contracts, an explanation for each unmet goal is required. Large Businesses with no documented SF294/ISR history shall submit a subcontracting history on Attachment (E), Small Business Past Performance. If more than four (4) reports are provided, only the first 4 reports will be considered.

http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm

c. Small Business proposers shall provide a subcontracting history on Attachment E, Small Business Past Performance.

d. If an Offeror is utilizing past performance information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the solicitation), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful participation of all members in the management of the subcontracting program/plan by identifying the personnel or resources from the member companies that will be dedicated to managing the plan, and an organization chart which demonstrates the reporting chain within the membership.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity, provide past performance information, elements a. through d., for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program/plan.

Proposals including information on any of the following additional elements may be rated higher, based on the evaluated extent to which the information addresses the paragraph (b), Basis of Evaluation for Subfactor 4.A.:

a. Provide information on national-level, and industry-issued awards that offerors received for outstanding support to SB concerns within the past five (5) years.

Include purpose, issuer, and date of award(s). National and industry-issued awards received beyond five (5) years will not be considered.

b. Provide information on previous, existing, planned or pending mentor-protégé agreements (MPA) under any Federal Government, or other, program held within the last five years. Information should include, at a minimum, the members, objectives, period of performance, and major accomplishments during the MPA.

c. Provide information on past use of Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) organizations certified under the AbilityOne Program by SourceAmerica, or the National Industry for the Blind (NIB). Information should include the contract type, type of work performed, period of performance, and number of employed severely handicapped persons.

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the proposer’s level of past performance in utilizing Small Business (SB) concerns, AbilityOne, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and other socio-economic programs, as defined in FAR Parts 26.1 and 26.2, in subcontracting, and in meeting established Small Business subcontracting goals.

Subfactor 4.B – Small Business Participation

Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member, e.g., LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, etc.

If you are a Large Business, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for this project in the format provided in Attachment F for this factor, to include all information required in the attachment. If you are a Small Business, submit a subcontracting participation breakdown in the format provided in Attachment G for this factor. All proposers: To demonstrate commitment in using small business concerns, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan or subcontracting participation breakdown may list all subcontractors by name. If the proposed Small Business Subcontracting goals do not meet the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, include a detailed explanation describing the actions taken to arrive at that determination, along with an explanation for the goals that actually were proposed. For proposals submitted on design-build solicitations, the proposer must identify its designer/design team in its Subcontracting Plan or Small Business Participation Breakdown.

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

a. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates maximum practicable participation of SBs in terms of the total value of the acquisition, including options.

b. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a commitment to use SB concerns that are specifically identified in the proposal, including but not limited to use of mentor protégé programs.

c. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates SB participation in a variety of industries expected during the performance of work.

d. The realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals.

The following will be evaluated on proposals submitted by Large Business firms:

a. The extent to which the proposal provides Small Business Subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, and utilization of AbilityOne CRP organizations. Proposals that provide goals exceeding the NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets may be rated higher. The proposed goals and NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracted values. The minimum NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are as follows:

FY2017

SB 46.18%

SDB 24.48%

WOSB 7.14%

HUBZone 9.18%

SDVOSB 4.08%

b. The extent to which the proposer’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan establishes reasonable efforts demonstrating the subcontracting targets can be met during the performance of the contract:

Attachment E – Small Business Past Performance Attachment F – Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Attachment G – Small Business Offeror Small Business Participation Breakdown

Factor 5 – Past Performance

The distinction between construction experience and past performance is construction experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, 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.

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

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

COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment D), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Lindsay Naill, via email at Lindsay.naill@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. More emphasis will be placed on more relevant projects. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information and context of the data. 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.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of conforming to drawings, specifications and standards of good workmanship, and will evaluate the Offeror’s record on cost control/change orders and adherence to contract schedules. Subcontractor management, safety management, and other quality control programs will also be reviewed. The Government will examine the Offeror’s record for reasonable and cooperative behavior, and in general, the Offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance.

Price

The price proposals shall be submitted separate from technical proposals. The offeror shall submit (1) original, marked “Original”, and (1) copy, marked “copy”, in a separate three ring binder (1&/1/2 inch. minimum) with the following:

• SF1442, signed with all amendments acknowledged

• Price Schedule

• Bid Guarantee in accordance with Provision NFAS 5252.228-9302-Bid Guarantee

• Include a cover page with Solicitation Number, Solicitation Title, Prime Contractor

Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact, phone number, and email address.

Price will be submitted on the Price Schedule included in the solicitation that includes completion of all contract line items (CLINS).

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 00100 or equivalent solicitation provision of the solicitation.

In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

[*Standard applicable clauses to be included in finalized solicitation.]

ATTACHMENTS

For purposes of this draft solicitation, the specifications and drawings from 100% pre-final design package will be uploaded to the Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) and Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) websites.

PLEASE NOTE: These are NOT the final design documents and are being provided for industry input only. These documents shall not be utilized for any other purpose than responding to this draft solicitation. Final specifications and drawings will be uploaded with the release of the finalized solicitation.