N40080-20-R-6202-0008.pdf

N4008020R6260

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

PROJECT: Regional Asbestos, Lead, and Mold Testing & Removal (ACQR 5793501)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

A. Extend Proposal due date to Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:00 PM;

B. Post add'l Govt Responses to Questions from RFI due March 22, 2021.

C. Incorporate updated requirement question for 1800000 – Environmental in SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Aw ard, dated 2/2/21.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Apr-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N4008020R6260

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Nov-2020

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

20-Apr-2021

CODE

NAVAL FACILITIES ENG COMMAND WASHINGTON

1314 HARWOOD ST

WASHINGTON DC 20374

N40080 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0008

N40080-20-R-6260-0008 ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY March 22, 2021.

1. Can the government please provide an explanation for changing the set aside from 8(a) Small business to a

WOSB?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: the solicitation was mistakenly changed to WOSB set aside. The previous posted amendments has corrected the solicitation to 8(a) set aside.

2. We would like to request an extension for the contractor RFI date, as the solicitation mentions a date prior to the amendment for question submittal.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Per amendment 0006, RFI was extended to March 22, 2021, Section L.4.

3. How and when will NAVFAC provide access to the DoD SAFE system for proposal submission?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Per amendment 0006, in order to initiate receipt of the Government’s drop-off of your proposals (price and nonprice), you must email the CS/KO:

SUBJECT: N40080-20-R-6260 REQUEST DROP-OFF

A “drop-off request” from CS/KO will be sent to your email you provide specifically to receive the request. Once the request is made, is valid for 14 days. See DoD SAFE Help, Section A, and Section L for more information.

4. The instructions in Section L2. (c) instructs that proposals should be submitted both as printed copies and CD copies, and through the DoD SAFE system. Please clarify whether offerors should submit proposals through both methods, or just one?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Per amendment 0006, Section L.2, proposals will only be received electronically through DoD SAFE; no printed copies will be accepted.

5. Since the projects could occur in one of several Davis Bacon Wage jurisdictions, should Offerors utilize the highest asbestos worker/heat & frost insulator wage rate when determining the rate schedule? If not, are we able to provide pricing based on each wage determination jurisdiction?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not instruct the contractor on how to price its proposals. The Wage determinations are information of the minimal wage amount for each locality in accordance with the DoL regulation.

6. Can the government please confirm that the abatement contractor does not need to provide a third-party Industrial Hygienist for Air monitoring? (Per page 40 Annex 1800000 Spec Item 1.1 states all Air sampling associated with the contract is provided by others.)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Independent Private Qualified Person (PQP).

Reference UFGS-02 82 13.00 10

1.2.25 Personal Sampling

Air sampling which is performed to determine asbestos fiber concentrations within the breathing zone of a specific employee, as performed in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101.

1.2.26 Private Qualified Person (PQP)

That qualified person hired by the Contractor to perform the herein listed tasks.

1.2.27 Qualified Person (QP)

A Registered Architect, Professional Engineer, Certified Industrial Hygienist, consultant or other qualified person who has successfully completed training and is therefore accredited under a legitimate State Model Accreditation Plan as described in 40 CFR 763 as a Building Inspector, Contractor/Supervisor Abatement Worker, and Asbestos Project Designer; and has successfully completed the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 582 course "Sampling and Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Dust" or equivalent. The QP must be qualified to perform visual inspections as indicated in ASTM E1368.[ The QP must be appropriately licensed in the State of [_____].]

7. Can the government explain the bonding requirement associated with the contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Bonding is required and applicable to State Laws and regulations for task orders over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). See clauses incorporated regarding bond and bid guarantee FAR 52.228-1 and FAR 52.228.15

8. Evaluation Factors b. ii. Workforce Management Plan; item b requires the proposer to provide a rational that explain how your proposed number of direct labor hours is consistent with your technical approach and indicate the number of productive hours per week or year for each full time and part time employee. We are not able to accurately estimate the productive hours per week or year based on an unknown quantity under this IDIQ contract. Can the government provide an explanation of how to estimate the asbestos testing and sampling quantities for a year in order to respond to this statement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Estimated quantities provided in Attachment J-0200000-07, ELINs.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-Apr-2021 01:00 PM to 27-Apr-2021 01:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

REVISED

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis of 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 lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

2. As stated in the solicitation, “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 LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

4. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award.

An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

Evaluation Factors for Award

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

Factor 1 – Price Factor 2 – Corporate Experience Factor 3 – Technical Approach Factor 4 – Safety 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.

2 Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

a Factor 1, Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The evaluated price shall be the sum Non-recurring Work CLINs for the base period, and five

(5) Option Periods. Total potential contract duration is 66 months. Provide the total price for performance of work required by the solicitation for all contract line items, including options, as presented in Section B including filling out and submitting unit prices and amounts for the contract line items, sub-line items, and exhibit line items in the ELIN spreadsheet, Section J, Attachment J-0200000-07 Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs).xls. Offeror shall provide a price per month for the base year, in the event the base year is less than one (1) year.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the Non-Recurring Work requirements for the base period and option years (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options, including 52.217-8, Extension of Services provision, and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M 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:

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

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGE.

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

b Technical (Non-Price) Factors:

(1) Factor 2, Corporate Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a TOTAL OF THREE (3) recent and relevant contracts performed within the last five (5) years preceding the release date of the solicitation that best demonstrates your corporate experience in successfully performing contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to this requirement. At a minimum, the Offeror must provide demonstrated corporate experience in asbestos abatement, mold and lead removal valued at least $750,000.00 per year for multiple locations and jurisdictions where work must be completed simultaneously.

(b) It is the Offeror’s responsibility to clearly explain and demonstrate to the Government how their work experience in each referenced contract is relevant to the contract requirements in this solicitation. If the Offeror does not clearly explain how its experience(s) is relevant to the solicitation requirements, the Government may interpret this failure to mean that the offeror lacks recent relevant experience performing contracts of similar size, scope and complexity, which may result in an unacceptable rating for this Factor.

Use of Attachment D - OFFEROR’S RELEVANT EXPERIENCE INPUT FORM is MANDATORY and SHALL be used. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not use more than 3 pages for each experience (i.e., the Attachment ‘D’ form itself and not more than 2 continuation pages).

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. Offerors are limited to a total of three (3) projects combined. The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors contemplating a Joint Venture shall show evidence in their proposal that the joint venture agreement has been received by the SBA prior to proposal due date if SBA’s approval is required. Teaming arrangements are not considered Joint Venture agreements.

Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1449), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

(c) Basis of Evaluation:

Offerors will be evaluated based on the recent and relevant experience performing the RFP requirements, particularly the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

Corporate experience will be considered technically acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates experience performing at least one (1) relevant project similar to the requirement defined in the solicitation (at a minimum, the Offeror must provide demonstrated corporate experience in an asbestos abatement, mold and lead removal projects valued at least $750,000.00/year for multiple locations and jurisdictions where work must be completed simultaneously) AND collectively demonstrates experience in all requirements identified in Annex 1800000 Spec Item 3 in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s corporate experience for relevancy on the basis of the written information provided in the proposal. The Offeror must demonstrate experience performing all requirements identified in Annex 1800000 in the PWS is MANDATORY to be rated Acceptable.

(2) Factor 3, Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly details its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Each of the five (5) components below must be tabbed in the technical proposal and discussed separately:

i. PHASE-IN PLAN

Provide a phase-in plan detailing time frames and a milestone to assume full service to ensure there will be no negative impact to start of services/projects.

ii. A WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT PLAN that:

a. Describes the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration and subcontractors. A detailed organizational chart depicting levels of authority and chain of command to the lowest level including subcontractors shall be included.

b. Provides a rationale that explains how your proposed number of direct labor hours is consistent with your technical approach and indicate the number of productive hours per week or year for each full time and part time employee.

c. Discusses how the offeror will accomplish Non-Recurring Work.

d. Provide a detailed asbestos abatement, mold and lead removal plan incorporating all locations. Also include your Quality Control structure and processes to ensure that quality services are provided utilizing appropriate inspection and removal techniques in a specified schedule at each location.

iii. KEY PERSONNEL: Provide job descriptions, names, titles, qualification, responsibilities and authority level of key personnel proposed for this contract, and to whom they will report to directly. Qualification requirements identified in Performance Work Statement Annex 0200000, Spec Item, 2.7.1 MUST BE met to be rated Acceptable.

iv. SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Provide the Offeror’s methods and procedures to monitor and manage subcontractor(s) effort to ensure their compliance with performance outcomes as stated in the solicitation.

In addition to addressing the above elements, the offeror shall also address the following questions. Failure to demonstrate capabilities in the following questions will be rated unacceptable:

Spec Item

Questions for Environmental, Specification 1800000

4.2 How will you ensure laboratories selected for analytical services are capable of meeting detection limits?

4.2.1 How will you go about obtaining your samples?

4.2.2 What is your quality assurance methods for doing field testing?

4.2.2 Does the contractor have a viable Quality Control Plan?

4.3 What are your steps for doing the final cleaning and inspections?

4.4 How will the Contractor ensure Hazardous Material, Hazardous Waste, and Other Regulated Waste (HM/ HW/ORW) are managed properly and do not escape into the environment, put others at risk for exposure, and are properly identified?

4.4.1 What will be your quality control process for ensuring regulatory compliance when handling Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste?

4.4.1 Does the Contractor utilize environmentally friendly cleaning products and recycled materials?

2.0 Does the contractor have a Management Plan that will allow it to manage its workforce across multiple locations simultaneously?

2.3 What is your plan to establish a work control system?

2.2.1 Does the Contractor have personnel who are trained, certified, and licensed performing specific tasks?

Updated 2/2/21

(A) SubFactor 1, Emergency Response Plan:

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the effectiveness and soundness of proposed methods for timely mobilizing a trained, qualified, and capable workforce proficient in the functional areas stated in the SOW.

(B) SubFactor 2, Certifications/Qualifications:

The proposal will be evaluated on the quality of the personnel and completeness of certifications, qualifications, and training.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: Acceptability will be based upon the quality of the Offerors technical and management approach. To receive a rating of “Acceptable” for this factor, the narrative must provide an explanation of how the offeror will meet the requirements.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the offeror’s technical/management approach to provide the full range of support services described in the PWS. Simple statements that the offeror will fulfill the requirements without a detailed description of how an offeror will accomplish the work maybe insufficient to demonstrate that the offeror can perform the contract requirements, which may result in a technical rating of Unacceptable. Do not assume that the evaluator(s) is/are familiar with the technical approach of your company based on other contracts held with this or another Agency.

(3) Factor 4, Safety:

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: 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.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY20XX, CY20XX, CY20XX, CY20XX, and CY20XX] 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.

a. 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.

b. 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

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY20XX, 20XX, 20XX, 20XX, and 20XX] 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.

a. 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.

b. 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

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

a. 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.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. 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).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

4. 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.

(b) 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.

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.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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

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.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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

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

a. 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.

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

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

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

4. 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.

(4) Factor 5, Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(b) 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), Attachment C, 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 2. 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, Shonn Gilkes via email at shonn.gilkes@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), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

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

(c) Basis of Evaluation: This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1. In addition, all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of acceptable performance considering:

i. A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

ii. A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

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

iv. Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

v. A respect for stewardship of Government funds

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the following definitions:

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

At a minimum, past performance information SHALL be obtained for each project offered under Factor 1 in order to receive an acceptable rating. However, an overall Marginal rating on one or more projects offered in Factor 1 will result in a rating of unacceptable for this factor.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

SECTION M 52.212-2 Evaluation Definitions

M.4 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as "PPIRS or FAPPIS." (A best practice can be to discuss adverse past performance which caused a rating to be lowered to Satisfactory, or possibly Good.)

Best Value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR Part 15.306(a)

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR Part 15.306(b)

Competitive Range is the offers rated most highly after proposal evaluations. Discussions will be held only with offerors in the competitive range. See FAR Part 15.306(c).

Deficiency is 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. See FAR Part 15.001.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d)

Due Diligence (Industry) - The process followed by prospective contractors to fully understand the government requirement in order to submit a complete, responsive proposal to the government which will result in a successful acquisition. Methods maybe include such activities as conducting site visits, attending industry days, one-on-one sessions with the acquisition teams, pre- proposal conferences and responding to draft requests for proposals.

Due Diligence (Government) - The process followed by the government acquisition team to ensure all prospective contractors are as informed of the government requirement and method of acquisition as possible in order to receive a reasonable number of competitive proposals from industry. Methods may include such activities as providing for site visits, conducting industry days, one-on-one sessions with interested vendors, pre-proposal conferences and sending draft requests for proposals to industry.

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Formal source selection means the source selection process used where someone other than the procuring contracting officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA), normally for high dollar value or complex acquisitions.

Large Business means businesses determined other than Small Business based upon industry size standards/NAICs codes. Includes: Large businesses, State and Local Government and non-profit companies. May also include: public utilities, educational institutions, and foreign-owned firms.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is a process used in competitive negotiated contracting where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. See FAR Part 15.101-2.

Minor or Clerical Error is a minor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon recent, relevant past performance information.

Probable Cost is the Government’s best estimate of the costs that a contractor will incur in performing a cost-reimbursement contract (FAR Part 15.404-1(d)(2)(i)). The probable cost must be ascertained by making a cost realism analysis during the evaluation of each proposal and must be used in making the source selection decision for best value.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Sub-factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Sample Task is a hypothetical task consistent with the RFP requirements to provide a common basis for comparing the relative costs/price of proposals and/or to assess an offeror's understanding of the requirement. It must be a reasonable representative of the kind or kinds of work that will be required. Some rates used to price the task order must be binding on the contractor for the sample to be valid. (Incorporation of binding rates also applies to any live/real task order.)

Source Selection is the process used in competitive, negotiated contracting to select the proposal that offers the best value to the Government.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results and make a recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best value decision, ensuring that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost/Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR Part 15.001.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

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

Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contract provisions in the solicitation.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/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).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR Part 15.001.

(End of Addendum 52.212-2)

(End of Summary of Changes)