N40080-24-RP-00062 RFP Mod 002 13 August 2024.pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT N40080-24-RP-00062 1 7

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

002 August 13, 2024 LO-10985

6. ISSUED BY CODE RE 8. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Washington 1314 Harwood St., SE Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code) ( ) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

N40080-24-RP-00062

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

MAY 15, 2024

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 one (1) copy 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 DATA 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 data 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:

X D. OTHER Specify type of modification and authority)

Rental terms and amounts

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

The purpose of this modification is to add information related to Phase II criteria to the Request for Proposals. Section 7.0 is hereby added in its entirety as described on the attached pages.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

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

CHRISTINE A. HAYS

Real Estate Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _____________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

8/13/2024

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

HAYS.CHRISTINE.ANNE

.1379285038

Digitally signed by

HAYS.CHRISTINE.ANNE.1379285038

Date: 2024.08.13 09:56:30 -04'00'

7.0 PHASE II – SELECTION OF DEVELOPER FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS

Offeror(s) who are selected for Phase II will be required to submit a revised proposal to include all information required in this section.

7.1 PROPOSAL RATING ASSESSMENT

To determine best value to the DON, formal Proposals that are deemed in compliance with the RFP will be evaluated on all Parts listed in Section 7.3 using the following Proposal Rating Assessment.

After each Factor is rated, each Proposal will receive an overall rating, also in accordance with the ratings defined below.

EXCEPTIONAL (E) – Proposal demonstrates thorough and detailed understanding of requirements. Technical approach, delivery schedule and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths.

Strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses, if any. The Proposal/factor represents a high probability of success with a very low degree of Proposal and performance risk.

GOOD (G) - Proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. The Proposal/factor represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of Proposal and performance risk.

SATISFACTORY (S) - Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements.

Technical approach and capabilities meet performance and capability standards.

Proposal/factor offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. The Proposal/factor represents a reasonable probability of success with overall moderate degree of Proposal and performance risk.

MARGINAL (M) - Proposal demonstrates a limited understanding of requirements.

Technical approach and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Proposal/factor contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. The Proposal/factor represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of Proposal and performance risk.

Proposal/factor might be made satisfactory with additional information and without a major revision of the Proposal.

POOR (P) - Proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The Proposal/factor represents a very low probability of success with an extremely high degree of Proposal and performance risk.

Proposal/factor could only be made satisfactory with major revision of Proposal.

7.2 IN-KIND PERFORMANCE STANDARD

To determine benefit to the DON, the proposed IKC project and delivery schedule will be evaluated by the DON. At Naval Support Activity Annapolis, the DON desires the greatest total cost of proposed IKC in Part III: Concept In-Kind Consideration across Subparts: A-C. Proposers must provide IKC in each Subpart A-C. Proposers must provide a commitment to exchanging IKC in a cost neutral manner across Subparts A-C prior to lease execution, if agreed to by DON and proposer.

DON will place greater value on IKC provided earlier in the lease.

7.3 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT

The Offeror’s Proposal will consist of four Parts:

Part I: National Security and Mission Assurance Information

Offeror will provide:

• The names of all business entities (along with all associated parent relationships) with a 10% or greater ownership (or other material relationship) in any business entities having ownership interest in the Offeror.

• The names of all business entities (along with all associated parent relationships) acting as lenders and/or creditors that hold security over the specified system, Offeror, and/or owner/sub-lessee if the Offeror will not directly own the specified System.

• The names of owner/sub-lessee if the Offeror will not directly own the specified System.

• The names of foreign business entities with which the Offeror has, or has had in the past five (5) years, a contract.

• Names of all material vendors with which Offeror intends to enter into a contract to perform on-site development, construction, operations, or maintenance activities, as well as names of all entities with a direct ownership interest in these material vendors.

Direct ownership interest means possession of stock, equity in capital, or any interest in the profits of the material vendor.

• Original country of origin for any raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished products to be located and/or installed on the Installation.

Part II: Business Proposal

• Subpart A: Project Plans

Offeror will provide a project plan that identifies:

• Market offtake plan, Memorandum of Understanding, Agreement in Principles or similar 3rd party agreement necessary for project execution.

• Any changes from Overall project concept submitted in Phase I.

• Analysis of the commercial risks inherent in the project concept, as well as a discussion on mitigating factors the offeror will put in place to reduce the likelihood and impact of those risks.

• Proposed timeline and plan of objectives and milestones.

• Any necessary documentation showing distribution utility approvals (including interconnection and regulatory approvals).

• Subpart B: Financial/ Creditworthiness

Offeror will provide a financing plan that identifies:

• Description of project ownership, financing, and contract structure. If the Offeror will not directly own the specified System, offeror must provide plan to secure a reliable owner/sub-lessee.

• Loan documentation including term sheet(s) setting out detailed terms and proof of funds;

• Financial commitments of all investors. Any agreements should be provided to the government which set out detailed terms of ownership and control, including language of any proposed guarantees and/or warrantees provided by investors;

• A pro-forma financial model for the proposed project. The model should forecast through the life of the project providing calculations for cashflow to equity, income statements, and balance sheets. The model should compute all relevant financial ratio and return calculations: annual debt service coverage ratio(s), loan-life cover ratio, project-life cover ratio, and internal rate of return.

The proforma model must be accompanied by documentation to instruct the government on the mechanics of the model. Clearly list all assumptions made in the model, with references. Explain the use of scenario and sensitivity analysis within the model, if relevant. Models that have been independently audited will be evaluated beneficially;

• Offeror must have a minimum bonding capacity equal to or greater than the proposed cost of the IKC to be considered credit worthy for this RFP.

• Subpart C: Community Benefit

Offeror will provide a Community Benefit plan that identifies:

• Aspects of the development and proposed future operations that will directly and indirectly benefit the local community throughout the duration of the lease term. See Appendix X, Hammond’s Connection at the Dairy Farm Master Plan (2009) as a concept example.

• Demonstration of commitment, along with any proposed partnerships and collaborations with local organizations, non-profits, and other entities, to ensure continued operation, maintenance, and support of an active, sustainable farm, with opportunities such as community gardening; youth (e.g., 4-H) and adult farm education; agricultural research and extension:

agricultural workforce development programs; and agro-tourism.

Part III: Concept In-Kind Consideration Design (See In-Kind Performance Standard, Section 7.2)

Offeror will provide:

• Subpart A: Renewable Energy Credits

• Number of Renewable Energy Credits to be provided as IKC.

• Nominal dollar cost of Renewable Energy Credits, stated in Net Present Value to include calculations.

• IKC delivery schedule.

• Subpart B: Infrastructure Improvement Projects

• Types of projects to be completed at Naval Support Activity Annapolis to enhance the Navy’s climate resilience posture.

• Nominal dollar cost of projects to be provided to Navy as IKC, disaggregated to illustrate cost breakdown.

• IKC delivery schedule.

• Subpart C: Cash Payment Reimbursement of USNA nonappropriated fund

• Nominal dollar cost to be provided to USNA Midshipmen’s Fund.

• Timing and delivery schedule of cash payment throughout the duration of the lease term.

Part IV: Concept Technical Project Design

Offeror will provide:

• Conceptual design of the System.

• Preliminary Site layout and design, to include the acreages/percentages for each type of proposed land use.

• Identify the specific elements of the proposed System that improve the DON energy resilience posture, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 101(e)(6).

• Technical details of how Offeror will satisfy Federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and or permits required to operate (e.g., environmental permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, utility interconnection policy, applicable government regulations).

• Plan for securing supply agreements, if necessary. Offerors with secured supply agreements shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially;

• Plan for securing engineering, procurement, and construction contract(s), if necessary.

Offerors with secured engineering, procurement, and construction shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially;

• Plan for securing operations and maintenance contracts(s), if necessary. Offerors with secured operations and maintenance contracts shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially;

• Plan for securing required insurance, if necessary. Offerors with secured insurance contracts shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially;

• securing permits and other necessary rights, if necessary. Offerors with secured transmission and offtake contracts shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially;

• Plan for securing transmission and sale to offtaker of power/storage generated, if necessary. Offerors with secured transmission and offtake contracts shared with the government will be evaluated beneficially.

7.4 SELECTION OF OFFEROR FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS

7.4.1. RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

Once deemed compliant with the RFP, each Proposal will first be evaluated for national security and mission assurance utilizing the information provided in Part I of the Proposal (see. Section 7.3). Offerors will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

Any Offeror found to be “unacceptable” will receive no further consideration for award. The Government may require the Offeror to employ a TPM responsible for inspecting all work conducted on the leased premises and any other work elsewhere on Navy property related to the In-Kind Project (if applicable) for Mission Assurance and National Security concerns.

Additionally, the TPM will be responsible for quarterly reporting to the Government throughout the duration of the Lease(s): (a) Notifying the Government of any foreign business entity involvement in the lease not previously identified to the Government during the Proposal process, and (b) Certifying to the Government that all work conducted on the leased premises and any other work elsewhere on Navy property related to the In-Kind Project (if applicable) is being constructed to the approved design specifications and does not contain any unauthorized equipment or material. The Government will notify any Offeror subject to this condition prior to selection for exclusive negotiations, to allow them to nominate a TPM for consideration pursuant to the criteria identified in Section 3.

7.4.2. BASIS OF EVALUATION

The DON will next evaluate Proposal Parts II, III and IV for risk, value, and benefit to the DON using the rating system outlined in Section 7.1. Parts II, III and IV are of equal importance to each other. Through these evaluations, the DON will determine and select the Proposal(s) demonstrating the lowest risk, highest value, and the most benefit to the DON, and notify Offeror(s) of their consideration for negotiations.