N004022R9543--0004.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 extend the proposal due date from 10:00 AM on 16 June 2022 to 10:00 AM on 24 June 2022.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jun-2022

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008022R9543

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-May-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Jun-2022

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:

N4008022R9543

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required performance has changed from NRDE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IDIQ JOC FOR NRL, DC; NRL CHESAPEAKE BEACH DETACHMENT; AND NSWC CARDEROCK, MDGeneral Construction Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract (IDIQ) Job Order Contract (JOC) for general construction projects and related services valued between $2,000 and $1,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Detachment, Naval Research Laboratory (Washington DC), and Naval Warfare Center Carderock, MD locations. The solicitation will result in a single award IDIQ general contrucion JOC contract. The period of performance is for a 1-year base, and four (4) 1-year option periods. The maximum value for all Option years is $50M. The Source Selection Process is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).This procurement is 100% set-aside for 8(a) Small Businesses under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 236220 with a size standard of $39.5 million. SBA WMADO Requirement 21-3323.Proposals are due no later than 10:00 AM on 16 JUNE 2022. Requests for Information (RFIs) must be submitted no later than 6 JUNE 2022. to NRDE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IDIQ JOC FOR NRL, DC;

NRL CHESAPEAKE BEACH DETACHMENT; AND NSWC CARDEROCK, MDGeneral Construction Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract (IDIQ) Job Order Contract (JOC) for general construction projects and related services valued between $2,000 and $1,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Detachment, Naval Research Laboratory (Washington DC), and Naval Warfare Center Carderock, MD locations. The solicitation will result in a single award IDIQ general contrucion JOC contract. The period of performance is for a 1-year base, and four (4) 1-year option periods. The maximum value for all Option years is $50M. The Source Selection Process is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).This procurement is 100% set-aside for 8(a) Small Businesses under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 236220 with a size standard of $39.5 million. SBA WMADO Requirement 21-3323.Proposals are due no later than 10:00 AM on 24 JUNE 2022. Requests for Information (RFIs) must be submitted no later than 6 JUNE 2022..

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION 00 21 16 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. POINT OF CONTACT

NAVFAC Washington NRDE Contract Optimization Cell is the procuring office for this basic contract and is responsible for all contractual matters related to the basic contract. All proposals are to be delivered electronically via PIEE Solicitation Manager. All inquiries shall be submitted in writing via email.

NAVFAC Washington NRDE Contract Optimization Cell

Primary POC: ShaMarian Plummer, Contract Specialist Email: shamarian.n.plummer.civ@us.navy.mil Phone: (410) 293-1074

Alternate POC: Lindsay Brown, Contracting Officer Email: lindsay.m.brown14.civ@us.navy.mil Phone: (202) 685-3192

2. STANDARD EXECUTION PROCEDURES

NAVFAC Washington NRDE Contract Optimization Cell and CON30 is the procuring office and is responsible for all contractual matters related to the basic contract. Individual task orders will be issued and administered by Contracting Officers at NAVFAC contracting sites of for Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC; and at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock, Maryland. Additional capacity will be offered to non-NRDE NAVFAC Washington customers serviced by the Washington Navy Yard, DC; Naval Support Activity Bethesda, MD; and Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA. Priority utilization of the contract will be afforded to NRDE Supported Command Customers.

3. SUMMARY OF SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, your initial offer should contain your best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in 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. Information regarding the source selection process, content of proposals, evaluation of proposals, and best value source selection evaluation criteria to be used is located in Sections 001000.

4. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

It is requested that all questions (Requests for Information/RFIs) be received by 12:00 PM (EST) on 6 June 2022.

Time will not permit published responses to questions received after this date. Submit all RFI’s on the RFI Form (Attachment 6).

5. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE/SITE VISIT

There is no Site Visit associated with this procurement.

6. DATABASE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

A. System for Award Management (SAM): In accordance with FAR Clause 52.204-7 System for Award Management, all contractors must be completely registered in the SAM database prior to the award of a contract, basic agreement, or blanket purchase agreement, in order to be eligible to receive an award. SAM is the primary registrant database for the U.S. Federal Government. SAM combines federal procurement systems and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance into one system. On-line registration instructions can be accessed from the SAM home page at www.sam.gov. All Joint-Ventures should be registered in SAM at the time of proposal submission.

B. VETS-4212: In accordance with FAR Subpart 2213, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) has issued Assistance Act (VEVRAA) which requires Federal contractors and subcontractors to annually submit the Federal Contractor Veterans’ Employment Report VETS- 4212. VETS has a legislative requirement to collect, and make available to OFCCP, reported data contained on the VETS-4212 and/or VETS-4212A reports for compliance enforcement. On-line registration instructions can be accessed from the VETS-100 home page at: http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm .

C. Executive Compensation: In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.14, Reporting Executive Compensation and

First-Tier Subcontract Awards, and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. All Offerors are required to report subcontract award data and the total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of the contractor and subcontractor. Refer to FAR 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards in Section I. On-line registration and instructions can be accessed from the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) homepage at: https://www.fsrs.gov .

D. In accordance with FAR 19, all Offerors must be a participant in the SBA-certified 8(a) Small

Disadvantaged Business Program. Upon receipt of Offers, the following will be verified for each Offeror:

a. Is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM); and,

b. Is self-certified as an 8(a) Small Business concern in SAM;

7. CONTENT OF PROPOSALS

A. PROPOSAL DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS:

Proposals shall be submitted utilizing the Solicitation Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). Department of Defense (DoD) training for industry partners is available at https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/sitepages/solicitation-module. Additional Web Base Training is available at https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml. Utilizing this delivery method, submissions shall be submitted to ShaMarian Plummer at shamarian.n.plummer.civ@us.navy.mil and copy Lindsay.m.brown14.civ@us.navy.mil.

Proposals shall be received electronically via PIEE Solicitation Manager no later than 24 June 2022 by 10:00 AM EST. Please allow SUFFICIENT TIME for your proposal to be received within the Government’s electronic system prior to the proposed cutoff date/time. All proposals must be received prior to the due date and time. Any proposals submitted after the time set for receipt will be documented with the date and hour of receipt and may be held unopened until after award. The file shall be documented in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Facsimile copies and hard copies will NOT be accepted.

B. SEED PROJECT INFORMATION:

In the absence of a Seed Project, the first Task Order may be awarded as the $2,000 guaranteed minimum.

C. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT:

The proposal submitted in response to this solicitation shall be clear, concise, and shall contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather should demonstrate convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the RFP.

Nonconformance with the solicitation requirements, specified organization and content may result in elimination or misevaluation of the proposal. All claimed technical capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Offerors should assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s business and that the Government will base its evaluation on the information contained in the Offeror’s proposals.

1) Volume I: Executive Summary. In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

a) Narrative Summary The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. Define direct lines of control, responsibility, functional relationships, including proposed teaming partners, joint ventures and/or significant subcontractors’ arrangements. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

b) Table of Contents.

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

2) Volume II: Technical Volume

In the Technical/Management volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical factor/subfactor. A concise and comprehensive proposal is desired. Organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance. Statements such as “will comply”, or “noted and understood” without supporting narrative to define compliance are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses which merely reiterate or reformulate solicitation language will not be considered as satisfying the requirements of the RFP or as demonstrating the ability to perform.

A complete electronic copy of the technical proposal as a single .pdf file. Limit is not to exceed seventy (70) pages for Volume 2. Technical Proposal Submission over this page limit will NOT be evaluated. Page limits do not include cover pages, business composition documents (i.e. Joint Venture Agreements, Teaming Agreements, etc.), or SBA certification documents.

Volume II Organization

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Part A - Subfactor 1 – Participation Eligibility

Part B - Subfactor 2 - Corporate Experience

Part C - Organization chart

Part D - Signed Joint Venture/Partnership/Teaming agreement, or approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement, if applicable. If applicable, include a Teaming/Partnering Consent Form (Attachment 4).

Part E- Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1)

Volume III: Safety

In the safety volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

• Safety Data Sheet o OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate o Total Recordable Case Rates (TCR)

• Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

Volume IV: Management Approach In the Management Approach volume the Offeror shall provide the following information

• Narrative Management Plan

This volume should note how the Offeror intends to manage multiple task orders across three different bases, how they intend to manage personnel and equipment between the sites, and projects, and plans to acquire additional personnel or subcontractor labor.

Volume V: Past Performance Information

Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in the Past Performance Questionnaires. Offerors may submit completed/finalized Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System records in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this Volume and data obtained from other sources (Government databases) in the evaluation of past performance.

Volume VI: Pricing

In the pricing volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

• Completed Coefficient Schedule

• Bid Bond for contract minimum guarantee of $2,000.

• Aggregate bonding in the amount of $20,000,000

Volume VII: Contract Documentation:

In the contract documentation volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

• Company Information Specific to the resultant contract

• Signed Standard Form (SF) 1442 with all amendments.

• Online Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for Award

Management (SAM)

• Other Relative Information

• Completed Forms

• VETS-4212 and/or VETS-4212A Report Submission Confirmation (or Statement of Non-

Applicability) Bid Guarantee in the amount of $2,000 (contract minimum guarantee)

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT

Volume I Executive Summary No page limit Vol I, Part A Narrative Summary

Vol I, Part B Table of Contents

Vol I, Part C Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Volume II Technical-(Evaluation Factor I) 70 page limit

Vol II, Part A Subfactor I- 8(a) Set-Aside Eligibility No page limit

Vol II, Part B Subfactor II- Corporate Experience

Vol II, Part C Organization Chart

Vol II, Part D Signed Joint venture/partnership/teaming/ Mentor- Protégé Agreement, if applicable

No page limit

Vol II, Part E Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1)

Volume III Safety-(Evaluation Factor II) No page limit

Vol III, Part A Safety Data Form (Attachment 2)

Volume IV Management Approach (Factor III) 2 page limit Vol IV, Part A Narrative Management Plan

Volume V Past Performance Information-(Evaluation Factor

IV)

No page limit

Summary of Recent/Relevant Past Performance Information (Attachment 3)

CPARS records, if applicable

Teaming Partner Consent Letters, if applicable

Volume VI Pricing-(Evaluation Factor V) No page limit Vol VI, Part A

Coefficient Schedule

Vol VI, Part B Bid Bond for contract minimum guarantee of $2,000

Vol VI, Part C Aggregate Bonding in the amount of $20,000,000

Volume VII Contract Documentation 20 page limit

Vol VII, Part A Signed Standard Form (SF) 1442

Vol VII, Part B Representations and Certifications

Vol VII, Part C Other Information (VETS-4212 and/or VETS-4212A Report Submission Confirmation , Company Information Specific to the resultant contract)

Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs).

The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation. Each page shall be counted except the following:

Cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries, generic resumes, and executive summaries.

Page Size and Format

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single spaced typed with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 10 point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text. The technical volume of the proposal is to be submitted as a PDF, searchable preferred, document. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall also apply to responses to ENs. The technical portion of the quotation is to be submitted as a PDF document.

Page Numbering

The Offeror shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references.

Consecutive page numbering within volume parts is preferred, e.g., page I-2-5, indicates Volume I, Part 2, page 5. Charts, graphs and other insert materials shall be page-numbered as part of the page numbering system.

Cover Page of the proposal must show:

The solicitation number; Solicitation title; and prime contractor’s name, address, Telephone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact, and email address.

Title page of the proposal must show:

A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

Offer expiration date;

Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

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

Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in English and in U.S. dollars.

Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal Volumes.

Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

Electronic Offers

In response to this solicitation, proposals shall be received electronically via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) to the contracting officer and contract specialist.

8. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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.

The Lowest Price Technically Acceptable process is appropriate for this acquisition. The best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

Proposals will be evaluated in the following order:

a. Evaluated for completeness, per responsiveness to the RFP;

b. Ranked in price order (coefficient totals), from lowest to highest;

c. Evaluated against the criteria, starting with the lowest priced proposal;

d. This process will be repeated until the first Technically Acceptable proposal is reached.

That Offer will be selected for award;

e. No other Offers will be evaluated after identification of the Lowest Priced

Technically Acceptable Offer.

2. An overall non-price factors/subfactors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor/subfactor 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.

3. 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 award without discussions/negotiations; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NPGI 15.304(3), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

o OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty and Job Transfer (DART) o Total Recordable Case (TCR) Rates o Offeror Technical Approach to Safety o Other sources of information available to the Government

3. The evaluators should collectively consider all elements of safety when assigning an overall adjectival rating for this factor. Safety will be evaluated utilizing the ratings outlined in Table A.

Table A. Safety Factors

(Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method)

Rating Definitions

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.

C. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

Each Offeror’s technical factors, subfactors, and past performance will be evaluated separately. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation of the technical factors, subfactors, and past performance; an overall non-price factors rating of Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) will be assigned to each Offeror’s non-price factors proposal.

1. The following adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign a rating to each technical factor and subfactor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factor ratings. Use lower case letter ratings for technical subfactor. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The weaknesses and/or deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each non-price evaluation factor which influenced the assigned adjectival rating shall be identified.

Definitions

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past Performance shall be evaluated when using the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b). Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in the following table:

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the Offerors’ performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offerors’ performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable (U) Based on the Offerors’ performance record, the Government does not have reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: 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

Unacceptable (U)

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

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(a) Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation.

(1) The first is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is relevant is unique to each LPTA source selection. For this solicitation, relevancy is defined as performance of projects with a similar size (dollar value), scope (variety of general construction projects) and complexity (industrial / residential / professional facilities).

Recency is defined as performance of projects within the five (5) years of the Request for Proposal effective date

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed 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.

(3) The Government may evaluate any performance evaluation within Federal databases with a rating less than Satisfactory on any contract, within the last two years, to determine Contractor Responsibility and overall performance risk.

(b) SSEB members will review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1-Technical Acceptability 1.a. – Set-Aside Eligibility 1.b – Corporate Experience Factor 2-Safety Factor 3-Management Approach Factor 4-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) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall complete and submit the following in its proposal.

- Completed Coefficient Schedule

- Bid Bond for contract minimum guarantee of $2,000

- Aggregate bonding in the amount of $20,000,000

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990). 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.

Failure to submit a complete coefficient schedule and a bid bond may result in an Offeror's proposal being rejected as unacceptable.

(b) Technical Factors:

1. Factor 1-Techical Acceptability:

i. Subfactor 1a, Set-Aside Eligibility

Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The current composition and proposed structure of the firm(s) to perform the contract will be evaluated in this factor. The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Provide a narrative describing the current Offeror’s composition and the proposed staffing for the awarded contract. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). Provide meaningful involvement of any affiliates or named similarly-suited subcontractors.

In addition to the narrative, and if applicable, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a Joint Venture

Agreement, Partnership Agreement, Teaming Agreement, or an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement (MPA).

Joint Venture entities are required to meet the same SAM registration requirements as single business Offerors. JV entities must show 8(a) status (by registration) in the SBA and SAM databases, to participate in this 8(a) competitive solicitation.

Basis of Evaluation: The assessment of the Offerors’ current composition will be used as a means to evaluate the Offerors’ eligibility to participate in the 8(a) Set-Aside. Mentor-Protégé Agreements will be validated and Joint Venture agreements will be validated and confirmed. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

ii. Subfactor 1b, Corporate Experience

Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract. Relevant projects are defined as general construction projects performing new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs of industrial/residential/professional facilities. Projects should require at last two or more types of disciplines of work.

Work must also demonstrate self-performance on at least 50% or more of each project submitted. Projects may include, but are not limited to commercial and institutional buildings and related structures such as commercial, industrial and institutional construction services with minimal design information (i.e. work plans) for new construction, repairs, rehabilitation, renovation and alterations for a broad range of facilities. Size is defined as projects with a final contract price of $500,000 to $2,000,000; and complexity is design-bid-build work on a variety of industrial/residential/ professional facilities. The Offeror must demonstrate it self-performed at least 50% or more of each project submitted (not just oversight). Recency is defined as projects submitted for the Offeror completed within the past five (5) years prior to the issuance date of this Request for Proposal.

In addition, the Offeror shall meet the following minimum requirements:

- At least two (2) relevant construction projects shall have a final construction cost of $500,000 or more, and one (1) relevant construction project shall have a final cost of $1,000,000 or more. The project may be performed by the Offeror as a Prime contractor or as a Subcontractor.

- Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For purposes of this solicitation, the definition of a “complete” project is the stage of construction of a building or facility at which its owner can occupy for the purpose it was constructed, or the owner has accepted the constructed building or facility.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For 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 1) 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. 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 (how the project meets the requirements listed above).

Contractual arrangements bound by an SBA Mentor/Protégé Agreement, a Joint Venture Agreement, or a Partnership Agreement are not considered Prime-Subcontractor arrangements; but are viewed as a single business entity. 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, relevant projects shall be submitted for at least one of the Joint Venture members. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Joint Ventures, like other Offerors, must be registered in the SAM and SBA databases as 8(a) entities at the time of proposal submission. An Offeror’s failure to submit evidence in their proposal as an 8(a) entity, that must be verifiable by SBA and SAM databases, will render the proposal Unacceptable and ineligible for award.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/ LTD member companies (name and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. The proposal shall state and provide written specific commitments of technical resources (e.g.

personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. The proposal must clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. The Offeror’s failure to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/ LTD firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract will be considered a deficiency resulting in an UNACCEPTABLE rating.

As outlined in 13 CFR 125.2(g), when an offer of a small business prime contractor includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors and specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in their proposal, NAVFAC Washington will consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime contractor.

Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the Offerors’ demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offerors’ relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review up to five projects (5) for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for construction experience will not be considered. In order to receive an Acceptable rating, the Offeror must submit at least three (3) construction projects considered recent and relevant with a final construction cost ranging from $500,000 to $2,000,000; with at least two projects valued at $500,000 or more and one (1) project valued at or over $1,000,000.

2. Factor 2-SAFETY:

Solicitation 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’ [CY2021, CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, and CY2017] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate or a “0” rating, 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’ [CY2021, CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, and CY2017] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate or a “0” rating, 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 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.

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 or a “0” rating without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. A DART rate above 2.99 will result in an UNACCEPTABLE rating if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

c. 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 or a “0” rating without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. A TCR rate above 4.49 will result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE unless if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

c. 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 2 pages 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

3. Factor 3-MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide a 2 page narrative demonstrating the Offeror’s approach to completing the work by effectively manage multiple task orders at geographically separated locations. The Offeror should address if they have or how they plan to perform multiple task orders with concurrent period of performances at different sites. For the purposes of this narrative, provide actual examples or assume 3 separate projects valued at $125,000 located on each site, with overlapping periods of performance.

Offerors shall include an unequivocal Letter of Commitment signed by each of its major subcontractor(s) in its proposal submission. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who performs twenty percent (20%) or more of the total on-site management or construction efforts or those performing 20% of more of the total dollar value of the project. Offerors are still expected to meet the limitation on subcontracting thresholds for 8(a) firms in a construction environment.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine whether the proposal provides a feasible management approach that demonstrates that the Offeror can successfully 1) perform work at different locations, 2) manage concurrent/multiple Task Orders, and 3) provide oversight at multiple sites simultaneously. In order to receive an Acceptable rating, the Offeror must address all submittal requirements and provide a management approach that is achievable

(4) Factor 4-PAST PERFORMANCE:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit Past Performance Questionnaires for the Projects submitted under Subfactor 1b, Corporate Experience.

Completed/finalized Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations may be submitted in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Offeror shall submit past performance questionnaires or finalized CPARs for the Offeror or its team members for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for the non-cost factors.

The Offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, and/or Joint Venture member authorizing release of past or present performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such…