23R0015 Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise evaluation factors and provide PPI responses. See Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Apr-2023

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008023R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Mar-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X 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

06-Apr-2023

CODE

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYS COMMAND

1314 HARWOOD STREET SE

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:

N4008023R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

This amendment hereby:

1. Revises Factor 1 – Experience requirements, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

2. Revises Factor 3 – Key Personnel

3. Adds Factors 5 and 6 as referenced in the basis of evaluation, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

4. Removes clause 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement from Section 00 70 00 - Conditions of the Contract

5. Provides PPI Response

1. Revises Factor 1 – Experience Requirements

REVISES SIZE, SCOPE, COMPLEXITY TO:

Size: A final construction cost of $45,000,000 or greater and 500 LF of pier/wharf construction

Scope: New Construction or Renovation of reinforced concrete wharfs or pier structures.

Complexity: Relevant projects chosen by the offeror for evaluation should demonstrate experience with each of the following elements, collectively:

- Controlled demolition of reinforced concrete and/or timber waterfront structures in an operational harbor/marina environment;

- Installation of Steel Pipe Piles, and Steel Sheet Pile Combi-walls, Prestressed Concrete square, or cylindrical piles utilizing equipment mounted on barges operating in open water. (note:

construction of micropiles does not satisfy this Element);

- Installation of precast systems (wave screens or other precast underwater structure assemblies) in operating environment. Cast-in-place construction of pier decking with integrated utility systems.

REMOVES COMPLETELY THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE:

The absence of one project that has a $45,000,000 or greater final construction cost that also meets the scope and complexity requirements will result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor.

2. Revises Factor 3 – Key Personnel as follows:

TO

(3) Factor 3 – Key Personnel:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide detailed resume and qualification information as defined in the contract specifications for each of the following roles:

- Quality Control (QC) Manager,

- Underwater QC firm and specific Underwater QC Team leader,

- Structural QC Specialist,

- Geotechnical Specialist, and

- Superintendent.

Information shall not exceed two (2) pages, 8 ½” x 11”, per individual. Do not include photographs.

NOTE: The Contract requires one specific person assigned to each role. “Dual-hatting” of the required roles shall not be accepted.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

Key Personnel will be evaluated based on the information provided when compared to contract requirements.

Relevant experience exceeding the contract requirements may be considered more favorably.

Substitutions of proposed team members after proposal acceptance must have equal to or better qualifications, experience, and performance.

3. Adds Factors 5 and 6 into Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

4. Removes Clause 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement from Section 00 70 00 - Conditions of the

Contract

5. Provides PPI Response

# Reference Question Government Response

Page Para Sect 1 5 Solicitation 3 Evaluation Factors for Award lists

(6) non-cost/price factors. Criteria for Factor 5 - Safety and Factor 6 - Past Performance are not included further in the Solicitation. Please provide these sections if they are to be submitted.

See Amendment 0001.

2 8 Solicitation Factor 1 Experience states, "For purpose of this procurement, recent, relevant projects are further defined as: Size: A final construction cost of $45,000,000 or greater and 500 LF of pier/wharf construction." Do all submitted projects (minimum of two (2) up to a maximum of five (5)) have to be $45,000,000 or greater? On page 9, last sentence of first paragraph it states, "The absence of one project that has a $45,000,000 or greater final construction cost.......will result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor." This last sentence make it sound like only one project needs to be over $45,000,000 but all submitted projects need to have 500 LF of pier/wharf construction.

No, See Amendment 0001.

3 8 Solicitation Third bullet under complexity states, "Installation of precast

See Amendment 0001.

(wave screens) in operating environment.." we request that "wave screens" be replaced with "underwater". Installation of "precast wave screens" are not common in this geographical region so we believe showing experience with installing underwater precast systems in an operating environment would be more beneficial to the Government.

4 31 Solicitation Clauses incorporated by reference listed in the solicitation includes 52.222-34 Project Labor Agreement. Will this project require a Project Labor Agreement?

No, See Amendment 0001.

8 3, (1), (i) 7 Reference RFP, Section 3, (1), (i) – Factor 1 Experience on Page 8/63.

Would NAVFAC consider changing the requirement of “Size:

A final construction cost of $45,000,000 or greater” to “$30,000,000 or greater” to accommodate allowing local marine contractors to qualify to bid this project?

No, Bid per RFP

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

4.4 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES (SAM.GOV)

5. INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

6. ATTACHMENTS: MAY BE LOCATED ON CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ATTACHMENTS

6.1 ATTACHMENT A – PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY LOG

6.2 ATTACHMENT B – PIEE SOLICITATION VENDOR ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS

6.3 ATTACHMENT C – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

6.4 ATTACHMENT D – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

6.5 ATTACHMENT E – HISTORICAL SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

6.6 ATTACHMENT F – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

6.7 ATTACHMENT G – INDIVIDUAL SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

6.8 ATTACHMENT H – PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

6.9 Contract Drawings

6.10 Contract Specifications

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.1.1 This acquisition is being solicited on an unrestricted basis, with Full and Open Competition.

1.1.2 The NAICS code for this procurement is 237990 and the size standard is $45,000,000

1.1.3 In accordance with DFARS 236.204, the magnitude of construction for this project is between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000

1.1.4 This solicitation is formatted as a Request for Proposal according to FAR Part 15. This method permits evaluation of proposals based on price competition, technical merit, and other factors; permits impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals; permits discussions if necessary; and ensures selection of the source whose performance provides the best value to the Government

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT:

Description of Work: This design-bid-build (DBB) construction project replaces the Yard Patrol (YP) Pier in the YP Basin and the non-functional wave screen at Naval Support Activity, Annapolis, Maryland. The updated pier comprises a 760-foot long by the 25-foot wide concrete main pier with attached 125-foot long by 13.5-foot wide concrete finger piers. Steel pipe monopiles will be used to define the slip limits and serve as mooring dolphins. The concrete deck will be supported by concrete beams and pile caps and founded on 24-inch wide square concrete piles.

The concept pier will include an independent wave screen that is constructed away from the pier. This wave screen concept will be based on a structure currently in service at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. The independent nature of the wave break will minimize the wave load transferred to the main pier while still protecting and creating the basin.

This scope includes the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 1100SF of the existing quay wall where the YP Pier meets the quay wall (250NS).

2. 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 contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment (Factor 6). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are of approximately equal importance to price. The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a Significant Weakness or multiple Weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified Weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the Weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1– Experience

Factor 2– Management Approach Factor 3 – Key Personnel Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization

Factor 5 – Safety Factor 6 – 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.

Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Price shall be submitted on the Price Proposal Form included in the solicitation. The offeror shall submit the proposal in accordance with INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS, 4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, 4.2

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS.

All submissions shall include the following:

• Cover page with solicitation number, solicitation title, offeror name, address, phone number, fax number, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), CAGE code, Point of Contact (POC), POC phone number, and POC email address;

Note: If proposing as a JV, please provide the UEI for each JV Partner, as well as the JV UEI, if applicable

• Completed SF 1442 signed with all amendments acknowledged;

• Price Proposal Form;

• Copy of Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for Award Management

(SAM);

• Confirmation of filing of Veterans’ Employment and Training (VETS) VETS-4212 for the 2021/2022 filing cycle; • Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. Amount shall be at least 20 percent of the proposed price, but shall not exceed $3 million;

• Responsibility Determination Information (see below)

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Note: Price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, non-price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered.

NOTE: A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph

(c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:

(A) Small business;

(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or

(E) Historically underutilized business zone small business.

The offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line items numbers (CLINs). Pricing information is not required to be completed under Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation Contract Form in SF 1442. All required proposal documents shall be submitted in accordance with FAR 15.208.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PRICE PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

RESPONSIBILTY DETERMINATION INFORMATION – In order to be eligible for award, the offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, specifically FAR 9.104-1, General Standards. In a separate tab, the offeror shall provide the following information in the price proposal package:

1. One (1) signed bank reference demonstrating adequate financial resources. If offeror’s firm has a line of credit – provide information on how many figures offeror can borrow against the line of credit (ex: “medium 6 figures” – exact line of credit is not required).

2. The offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or signed by an authorized officer of the organization.

Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements, submit the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each company in the Joint Venture and discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies. The Government may also utilize Dun & Bradstreet reports to evaluate the financial capacity of the offeror.

3. Description of offeror’s facilities and equipment.

4. Other offeror’s work presently under contract.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (April 2020) (REFERENCE FAR 52.219-9 ALT II AND

DFARS 252.219-7003) INFORMATION.

In accordance with FAR 19.7, all other than small businesses shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) utilizing the template provided as Attachment G. Acceptability of the SBSP will be considered a responsibility matter. The SBSP will not be evaluated or rated by the SSEB, but reviewed by a Small Business Professional/Authorized Representative and the Contracting Officer for acceptability. The SBSP shall be negotiated and/or accepted within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan within the time limit prescribed by the Contracting Officer will render the offeror ineligible for award of the contract. The SBSP will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

NAVFAC’s command-wide small business subcontracting targets are shown below. These may be higher or lower than percentages that would represent realistic, challenging, small business subcontracting goals for this acquisition consistent with efficient and effective performance of the contract. These targets are based on a percentage of total planned subcontract dollars.

Small Business (SB) 40% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% HUBZone SB 3% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 9% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%

The SBSP shall be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Utilization and Participation factor. In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses are specifically identified in proposals, those small businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in the SBSP.

Please note that SBSP goals and the participation rates provided in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) WILL NOT be the same. The participation rates within the SBPCD are provided as percentages of the total contract value; subcontract plan goals are provided as a percentage of planned subcontracting dollars.

While the percentages will differ, the types of products/services identified in the SBSP, should be the same as those products/services identified in the SBPCD.

Likewise, the planned small business subcontract dollars in the SBSP will be equal to (or in some cases greater than) the extent of small business participation identified in the SBPCD. Although required to be submitted with offeror’s price proposal, this information will not be evaluated as part of the price proposal. This information forms the basis of your firm’s responsibility determination should your firm be considered for award. Proposal packages from unsuccessful offerors will not be returned to the offeror, but shall be destroyed by the Contracting Officer. No certificate of destruction will be issued.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options 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:

(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.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

The offeror shall submit the proposal in accordance with INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS, 4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, 4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS. All submissions shall include the following:

• Cover page with solicitation number, solicitation title, offeror name, address, phone number, fax number, UEI, CAGE code, Point of Contact (POC), POC phone number, and POC email address;

• Refer to individual factors for page limitations. Pages that exceed indicated page limitations shall not be evaluated.

Note: If proposing as a Joint-Venture (JV), please submit the POC, UEI, and CAGE Code for each JV partner.

Note: Price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, non-price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered.

(1) Factor 1 Experience:

The offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of two (2) up to a maximum of five (5) construction projects performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor that best demonstrates the Offeror’s relevant experience (projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to this project). Projects submitted for the offeror shall have been completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this RFP or be at least 75% complete by the date of issuance of the RFP. Projects that are not at least 75% complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered “Not Relevant”.

Additionally, Projects completed more than ten (10) years prior to the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered “Not Relevant.” For purposes of this procurement, recent, relevant projects are further defined as:

Size: A final construction cost of $45,000,000 or greater and 500 LF of pier/wharf construction

Scope: New Construction or Renovation of reinforced concrete wharfs or pier structures.

Complexity: Relevant projects chosen by the offeror for evaluation should demonstrate experience with each of the following elements, collectively:

- Controlled demolition of reinforced concrete and/or timber waterfront structures in an operational harbor/marina environment;

- Installation of Steel Pipe Piles, and Steel Sheet Pile Combi-walls, Prestressed Concrete square, or cylindrical piles utilizing equipment mounted on barges operating in open water. (note: construction of micropiles does not satisfy this Element);

- Installation of precast systems (wave screens or or other precast underwater structure assemblies) in operating environment. Cast-in-place construction of pier decking with integrated utility systems.

It is critical that submissions ensure that project descriptions clearly address how each project meets the scope and complexity requirements as delineated above, provides the final construction cost AND linear footage of the project.

The absence of any such information may result in the Project being considered Not Relevant, which could result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor

Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered. Furthermore, the offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project;

rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a single task order as a project. The submission of a multiple award and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract as a whole will be considered Not Relevant.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided pages (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods).

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. Experience submitted for one of the Offeror’s Joint Venture members while the Joint Venture member was a member in a different Joint Venture entity may be submitted to demonstrate relevant project experience. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) total projects. For a JV, the offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, the offeror shall submit the signed, and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) approved, Mentor-Protégé agreement.

If the Offeror is proposing as a single corporate entity (i.e. not as a Joint Venture), the Offeror may submit relevant project experience it performed as a partner in a previous Joint Venture. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects.

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will assess the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) projects total. Any projects submitted in excess of the limit of five (5) will not be considered. An offeror that does not submit a minimum of two (2) relevant projects as defined above will receive a rating of “Unacceptable” and will not be eligible for award.

Offerors that demonstrate the following additional experience(s) on relevant project(s) may be considered more favorably and receive higher ratings:

1. Experience with execution of work on open water/unprotected areas subject to wind and wave action.

2. Experience and successful execution of work in congested and/or operational marina/berthing/waterfront areas.

(2) Factor 2 – Management Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative which shall not exceed four (4) 8 ½” x 11” pages, detailing the contractor’s understanding of the project, and their proposed plan for delivery of the project with specific focus on its timely completion. Specific items to be addressed include:

(1) General outline of major/critical path activities, including logistic plans to execute the work within the available land and water side footprint including but not limited to barge mounted equipment and logistic support.

(2) Procedures to ensure accountability for quality of work and promote timely completion of rework items to allow for follow-on work that does not conceal deficient work, including oversight by QC and field staff in coordination with Government QA.

(3) Early actions over the life of the project that would support successful safe progress along with Red Zone procedures and any additional resources to be provided for this effort.

(4) Process for transition from the Definable Feature of Work based 3-phase QC procedures to the Completion Inspection three step process. Address completion of Commissioning, Critical Systems Acceptance with

Government staff throughout project work and prior to finishing the Pre-Final Inspection cycle to allow for successful Final Acceptance Inspection.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will be based on demonstrated understanding of the contract requirements, the completeness of the total content, the likelihood for successful project execution, and degree of risk minimization shown in the Offeror’s proposed approach. Factor 2 will be evaluated to gauge the likelihood for successful project execution.

Offerors that provide a narrative that addresses the items, demonstrating or referencing parts of the Statement of Work and explaining how the Offeror’s QC team would coordinate with the On-Site Gov’t Construction Management Team to successfully deliver the project, including mitigating schedule and performance risks, may be considered more favorably.

(3) Factor 3 – Key Personnel:

(iii) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide detailed resume and qualification information as defined in the contract specifications for each of the following roles:

- Quality Control (QC) Manager,

- Underwater QC firm and specific Underwater QC Team leader,

- Structural QC Specialist,

- Geotechnical Specialist, and

- Superintendent.

Information shall not exceed two (2) pages, 8 ½” x 11”, per individual. Do not include photographs.

NOTE: The Contract requires one specific person assigned to each role. “Dual-hatting” of the required roles shall not be accepted.

(iv) Basis of Evaluation:

Key Personnel will be evaluated based on the information provided when compared to contract requirements.

Relevant experience exceeding the contract requirements may be considered more favorably.

Substitutions of proposed team members after proposal acceptance must have equal to or better qualifications, experience, and performance.

(4) Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization:

1. Achievements: All offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two pages) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns to participate as subcontractors consistent with efficient contract performance. In support of narrative submissions:

a. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor in the format provided in Attachment E, Small Business Subcontracting Record.

b. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall also provide copies of the most current individual subcontracting reports (ISRs) associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor if a small business subcontracting plan was required by the contract. If such projects were completed under specific task orders, provide ISRs for the overall contract. For cited projects with state and local government agencies, provide similar subcontracting performance reports if required by the contracts. When not specifically addressed in the ISR or similar report, offerors shall provide explanations for all instances of failures to meet dollar or percentage goals in individual subcontracting plans.

Notes:

The Government reserves the right to consider achievements information on other recent, relevant projects from all available sources.

Offerors utilizing achievements information of team members or key subcontractors shall clearly demonstrate how these companies will have meaningful involvement in the management of the subcontracting program for this acquisition. If not, such achievement information will not be considered under this factor. If the offeror is a new joint venture, partnership or other entity consisting of more than one company, provide achievements information for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program and clearly describe those responsibilities.

Failure to provide ISRs or any other requested information must be fully explained and may negatively impact your evaluation.

2. Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy including all data elements shown in Attachment E, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

a. Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition the extent of work the offeror will self-perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a joint venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member (e.g. small business, woman-owned small business, other than small business).

b. Include supplemental narratives (limited to five pages) to address other elements of the offeror’s strategy such as binding agreements covering post award roles for execution of the contract and specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small businesses opportunities to both participate in this acquisition and build capabilities to support future NAVFAC acquisitions.

c. The anticipated prime and first tier overall small business participation rate for this acquisition (i.e. work to be performed by small businesses as the prime and/or subcontractors) is 20% of the contract value. Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business socioeconomic programs listed in Attachment F consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors shall explain in their participation and commitment strategies how proposed participation rates were established. The small business participation and commitment strategy must be in agreement with any required small business subcontracting plan and will be made a part of the contract upon award.

Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. The anticipated benefits of proposed initiatives and tools to enhance small business participation and capabilities will be considered. The Government will assess proposal realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition.

Attachment E – Small Business Subcontracting Record Attachment F – Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy

(5) Factor 5 – Safety:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. NOTE: If an Offeror does not have data for a given year or was not required to track data, the Offeror shall insert “N/A”. Offerors who submit a 0.00 are indicating No Incidents.

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. NOTE: If an Offeror does not have data for a given year or was not required to track data, the Offeror shall insert “N/A”. Offerors who submit a 0.00 are indicating No Incidents.

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.

(6) Factor 6 - Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects:

Recent, relevant projects are determined within the requirements for Factor 1, Experience.

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

PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. 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, Holly Snow at holly.r.snow.civ@us.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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation that may be used are as follows:

- Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited;

- Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

- Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the offeror performed on the projects submitted under Factor 1 –Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

The degree to which past performance evaluations and 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 satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

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

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

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

When: 11 April 2023 Time: 0900 – 1130 Where: Halligan Hall, 181 Wainwright Dr, Annapolis, MD 21402

Site Visit attendees will meet at Halligan Hall in the PWD Conference Room. The Government will present an project overview brief for approximately 30 minutes. At the conclusion of the brief, site visit attendees will be escorted via government sponsored van to the Yard Patrol Basin Work site. The van will return to Halligan Hall at the conclusion of the site visit, around 1130.

Note: Halligan Hall and the YP Basin work site are outside of the secure perimeter and do not require special access/badges. Site Visit Attendees need only to bring a valid government issued Driver’s License or ID card.

It is recommended that attendees arrive at Halligan Hall 15 minutes in advance of the start time. The Site Visit will not be adjusted for late arrivals.

Please send an email to Holly.r.snow.civ@us.navy.mil NLT 6 April 2023 at 1400 listing the names and titles of each anticipated attendee from your firm.

4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In response to this request for proposal, the complete proposal shall include the Price Proposal and the Non-Price Factors Proposal, submitted in accordance with the above Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

The Offeror is required to submit one complete electronic copy labeled original, and one hard copy.

Electronic Copies

Offerors shall submit electronic proposals (.pdf format) in response to this solicitation. Only the PIEE Solicitation Module is authorized for the submission of electronic proposals in response to this solicitation.

Electronic proposal submissions should be no…