N40083-13-R-3114_Amendment_1.pdf

013106

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 change the date of the Pre-proposal conference to Tuesday, August 13th at 0930.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 29

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Aug-2013

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 N40083-13-R-3114

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Aug-2013

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, 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

02-Aug-2013

CODE

NAVFAC MIDWEST PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

PWD GREAT LAKES FEAD/2625 RAY ST, B.2016

GREAT LAKES IL 60088

N40083 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N40083-13-R-3114

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

Proposals are due no later than 2:00 P.M. CST, 03 September 2013

Proposals shall be submitted to:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Midwest PWD Great Lakes ATTN: Joe Loersch 2625 Ray Street, Building 2016 Great Lakes, IL 60088-2801

SOLICITATION NO: N40083-13-R-3114

PROJECT TITLE: IQ PAVING, NAVAL STATION, GREAT LAKES, IL

THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS SHOULD BE USED IF FEDERAL EXPRESS IS USED FOR

PROPOSAL CORRESPONDENCE:

NAVFAC MIDWEST, PWD GREAT LAKES

ATTN: JOE LOERSCH

2625 RAY STREET, BUILDING 2016

GREAT LAKES, IL 60088-2801

THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS SHOULD BE USED IF REGULAR MAIL IS USED FOR

PROPOSAL CORRESPONDENCE:

NAVFAC MIDWEST, PWD GREAT LAKES

ATTN: JOE LOERSCH

201 DECATUR AVENUE, BUILDING 1A

GREAT LAKES, IL 60088-2801

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

Inquiries regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be submitted electronically using the Request for Information (RFI) form provided with this solicitation (ATTACHMENT A). The Point of Contact (POC) for inquiries is Joe Loersch at (847) 688-5395, extension 253, FAX (847) 688-3689, or by e-mail at joseph.loersch@navy.mil. Any inquiries must be received by the Government no later than 2:00P.M.

CST, August 27, 2013 in order to permit adequate time for the Government to reply to inquires.

PROPOSALS MUST SET FORTH FULL, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE INFORMATION AS

REQUIRED BY THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP), INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS.

THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS AND AWARD WITHOUT

DISCUSSIONS. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT

DISCUSSIONS IF IT IS LATER DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO BE

NECESSARY. THEREFORE, EACH INITIAL OFFER SHOULD CONTAIN THE BEST TERMS

FROM A TECHNICAL AND PRICE STANDPOINT.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

This solicitation is for an Indefinite Quantity (IQ) Paving Contract for Naval Station Great Lakes, IL and associated areas within a 75 mile radius of Naval Station, Great Lakes, IL and is a Small Business set-aside. The Government will only accept offers from offerors that are small businesses. This is a negotiated procurement, using the Lowest Price/Technically Acceptable Process on the Best Value Continuum in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 that will result in a Firm Fixed- Price Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity Contract. The Government anticipates a contract award for this project in September 2013.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 237310, Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction, with a size standard of $33.5 million. The contract will contain a base year of 12 months and two 12 month options for a maximum duration of 36 months and a maximum value of $3.3 million per year. The government intends to award a single contract. The offeror who is selected to be the IQ paving contractor will be awarded the seed project of Building 3451 Employee Parking Lot. The magnitude of the seed project is estimated between $100,000 to $200,000.

The work consists of asphalt and Portland cement pavement construction and repair and all incidental and miscellaneous related work. The work includes, but is not limited to asphalt and concrete pavement construction and repair such as paving, patching, surface treatments, earthwork, landscaping, curb and gutter, drainage structures and pipes and other items defined in contract documents.

SECTION 00100 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Inquiries Inquiries regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be submitted electronically via fax or e-mail. The Point of Contact (POC) for inquiries is Joe Loersch at (847) 688-5395, extension 253, fax (847)688-3689, or via e-mail to joseph.loersch@navy.mil. The Government does not intend to respond to inquiries submitted after August 27, 2013.

2. Proposal Submittal Requirements Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as follows and furnished in the number of copies stated herein. In response to this request for proposal, the complete proposal package shall include:

PARAGRAPH TITLE

2.1 Cover Letter

2.2 Price Proposal (SF 1442) With Attachments

2.3 Technical Proposal Tabbed With Attachments

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Proposals shall be submitted in three ring binders or bound, with tabs or separators. Proposals shall be submitted on 8.5” x 11” paper, utilizing both sides of the paper, unless otherwise identified.

2.1. Cover Letter. The cover letter shall include:

a) The solicitation number

b) Name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address of the offeror.

c) The DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the offeror

d) Names, titles, phone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation

e) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal

2.2. Price Proposal. The price proposal consists of the total evaluated price for all work as specified in the RFP. Offeror is required to prepare and submit two (2) copies of the price documents separately from the technical proposal data and should be labeled “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – FAR 3.104.” Envelopes shall be clearly marked “Price Proposal – Do Not Open in Mailroom.” See Section 00210 for complete submittal requirements. A Price Proposal Submittal checklist is provided to assist in preparation and submittal of the offeror’s Price Proposal:

*Bonding Requirement (additional item under Tab 4)

The offeror shall have a bonding capacity of $3,300,000 per year.

The offeror shall furnish a letter from their Surety stating the company’s bonding capability for a maximum amount of $3,300,000 per year.

PRICE PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

INCLUDED

TAB

Executed copy of SF 1442 (Enter yearly amounts on CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003)

ELIN Schedules A (Base Year), B (Option Year 1), C (Option Year 2), and D (Seed Project)

Responsibility Evaluation Form (Attachment B)

TAB

Completed Reps & Certifications Cover Sheet (Attachment D)

TAB

One (1) executed copy of Representations & Certifications

TAB

One (1) executed Bid Guarantee (SF-24); equal to 20% of proposed amount for seed project.

Letter from Surety which states bonding capability for a maximum amount of $3,300,000 per year.

Acknowledgement of all amendments (Block 19 of SF 1442)

NOTE: The Price Proposal Submittal Checklist is provided in full as Attachment E and is to be included in the front of the Price Proposal Binder and tabbed as indicated.

2.2. Technical Proposal. Offeror is required to prepare a technical proposal that addresses items called out in evaluation factors and submit six (6) copies in a separate sealed envelope marked:

“Technical Proposal – Do not open in Mailroom.”

a. To facilitate the evaluation, the technical proposal should be sufficiently detailed and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements. Substantial extraneous information in the technical proposal may be construed as indicative of the offeror’s ignorance of the requirements or a casual approach to the RFP. Statements that the prospective offeror understands and can or will comply with all specifications, statements paraphrasing the statement of work or parts thereof, and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used”, etc., will be considered insufficient.

b. The technical proposal shall be clear, concise and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

See Section 00210 for complete submittal requirements. A Technical Proposal Submittal checklist is provided to assist in preparation and submittal of the offeror’s Technical Proposal:

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

TAB

Factor 2 – Experience

TAB

Factor 3 – Past Performance

TAB

Factor 4 – Safety

TAB

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

NOTE: The Technical Proposal Submittal Checklist is provided in full as Attachment F and is to be included in the front of the Technical Proposal Binder and tabbed as indicated.

3. Pre-Proposal Conference.

(a) A pre-proposal conference will be held on August 13, 2013 at 9:30AM local time at 2625 Ray Street, Building 2016, Great Lakes, IL, and then proceeding to the project site, building 3451 Navy Exchange. A base pass is not required for the site visit.

(b) Photographs of work areas are permitted so long as no other areas or Government personnel are photographed, due to security considerations.

(c) The pre-proposal conference offers opportunity for networking with potential Subcontractors. Interested Prime Contractors and Subcontractors are encouraged to participate.

It is suggested that attendees come prepared for this event with company literature or brochures.

(d) All prospective offerors are urged to attend this conference. In order to make the conference as productive as possible, offerors are requested to submit in writing, one week prior to the pre-proposal conference, any questions they may have to Joe Loersch at joseph.loersch@navy.mil.

(e) Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions or to attend the conference will be construed to mean that the offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation.

Prospective offerors are advised that the pre-proposal conference will be held solely for the purpose of explaining the concepts involved in the project and the specifications, terms, and conditions of this solicitation.

4. Joint Venture Agreement. Joint Venture Offerors shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement. The agreement shall include information that identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract, demonstrates the relationship between firms, and identifies contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture. The joint venture also needs to complete the online representations and certifications for each joint venture member as well as for the joint venture itself.

5. Responsibility Evaluation. Offerors shall complete the Responsibility Evaluation Form (Attachment B) and submit with the Price Proposal. Each reference must include the name, phone number, and email address of person(s) to contact. Please ensure bank and credit references are notified by letters on company letterhead that the Government will be contacting them to determine contractor responsibility. Provide a copy of the notification letter that was sent to the bank and credit references with the Price Proposal submission.

6. System for Award Management (SAM). Contractors must be registered in the SAM prior to award of a Department of Navy contract. For more information, see the SAM website at http://www.sam.gov. A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor not registered in SAM.

Review the NAICS codes listed in your CCR record and make sure that you have listed the NAICS code for this procurement (NAICS 237310 – Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction).

7. Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA). In order to participate on this solicitation, contractors shall complete electronic (online) representations and certifications. To complete the ORCA, see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov. Two items are needed prior to ORCA registration: (1) an active record in SAM and (2) a Marketing Partner ID Number (MPIN) from that active CCR record. Once logged in to the SAM website using a valid Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and MPIN, make sure to complete the ORCA registration process by clicking the “Create ORCA Record” button at the bottom of the page. Contractors must then complete the questionnaire and click the “Submit Certification” button when finished.

8. VETS 100 Reporting.

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.1301, any contractor or subcontractor with a contract of $150,000 or more with the Federal Government must take affirmative action to hire and promote qualified targeted veterans which includes special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam-era, recently separated veterans, and any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized.

Companies must file an annual VETS-100 report, which shows the number of targeted veterans in their work force by job category, hiring location, and number of new hires, including targeted veterans hired during the reporting period and the maximum number and minimum number of employees of such contractor during the period covered by the report. Instructions, information and follow-up assistance is provided at VETS-100 Internet site at http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/fcp/main.htm or employers may contact the VETS-100 Processing Center at (301) 586-1580 or email at helpdesk@vets100.com.

9. Incurred Expenses. The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

SECTION 00210 – BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Basis of Award

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. If more than five (5) proposals are received, the Government reserves the right to only evaluate the five lowest priced proposals.

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

3. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

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

2. Evaluation Factors for Award. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following technical factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

The relative order of importance of the technical evaluation factors and subfactors is Factors 1 through 5 are equal in importance to each other.

Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor are as follows:

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Two (2) executed Solicitation, Offer and Award Forms (SF1442) including supplemental pages. Offerors shall enter the total price for the contract line item (CLIN) located in the SF 1442.

Responsibility Evaluation Form (Attachment B) Completed Representations and Certifications Cover Sheet (Attachment

D) One (1) executed copy of Representations and Certifications – Section

00600 of RFP (FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.247-7022) One executed Bid Guarantee (SF-24) Letter from Surety which states bonding capability for a maximum amount of $3,300,000 per year.

One (1) copy of the completed ELIN Schedule

NOTE: Please see Factor 2 of this section for Past Performance Questionnaire submittal requirements.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the requirements for the base year and the seed project. The Government intends to evaluate the base year and seed project line items and perform a price realism analysis of the option years’ line items. 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) Technical Factors (tabbed as indicated):

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and key sub-contracting firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of a significant subcontractor is being claimed in Factor 2, the firm must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture partner, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. Offerors that are rated Unacceptable will be found ineligible for award.

Factor 2 – Experience:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

A relevant project is defined as one that demonstrates the ability to:

--remove and replace asphalt at specified levels --remove and replace concrete curbs and gutters --provide and install thermoplastic pavement markings --determine proper elevation to align with existing pavement --determine proper slopes necessary to facilitate proper drainage.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

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 should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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 page (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). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include 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 projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered.”

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed sub-contracting firm(s) have previously worked together may receive a higher rating than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

IF A COMPLETED CPARS/CCASS 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 2—Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED

CPARS/CCASS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS/CCASS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ’s should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the cover sheet and first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), 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, Joe Loersch, via email at joseph.loersch@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQ’s or CPARS/CCASS previously submitted for other RFP’s.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. More emphasis will be placed on relevant projects. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown Confidence rating.

Factor 4 – Safety

(a) Submittal Requirements:

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

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the three (3) [2010, 2011, 2012] previous complete calendar years, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three (3) year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

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

For the three (3) [2009, 2010, 2011] previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S.

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

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

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

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

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

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

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

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include the following:

- Thermoplastic application

- Availability of necessary equipment

- Minimization of customer impact during construction

- Basis of assumptions for proposed line item quantities (do not address price)

Narrative shall not exceed six (6) double-sided pages (or 12 single-sided pages).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

ATTACHMENTS FOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED AS

FOLLOWS:

ATTACHMENT A

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

IQ PAVING

The Government does not intend to respond to inquiries submitted after August 27, 2013.

Please submit questions to Joe Loersch by e-mail at joseph.loersch@navy.mil

FIRM NAME: ________________________________________________________________

POC: ______________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS: __________________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER: __________________ FAX NUMBER: ______________________

E-MAIL ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________

Question is regarding (If known):

Section of the Request for Proposal: ______________________________________________

Paragraph: __________________________________________________________________

Page number: ________________________________________________________________

QUESTION:

ATTACHMENT B

RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION FORM

(to be submitted with Price Proposal)

Each reference must include the name, phone number, and email address of person to contact. Please ensure bank and credit references are notified by letters on company letterhead that the Government will be contacting them to determine contractor responsibility. Provide a copy of the notification letter that was sent to the bank and credit references with Price Proposal Submission. (NOTE: Bank and credit references are obtained in accordance with FAR 9.104 to determine contractor responsibility).

Offeror: ____________________________________________ Date: __________________

A. NAMES OF OFFICERS, OWNERS OR PARTNERS:

President: ________________________ Vice President: __________________________ Secretary: ________________________ Treasurer:_______________________________ Owner or Partners: ___________________________________________________________

B. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFERS, MODIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT FOR

COMPANY

Name: __________________________ Official Capacity: ________________________

C. BANKING REFERENCES (Please notify the Point of Contact that we will be contacting.)

Name of Bank: _____________________ Point of Contact: _________________________ Address: __________________________ Phone: _________________________________ Email:_________________________________ Checking Account: _____________ Savings Account: ____________ Loan:_____________

GOVERNMENT USE

Date account opened: _________________________________________________________ Ratings: __________________ Amount: _______________ Balance: __________________ Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________

D. CREDIT REFERENCES (Please notify the Point of Contact that we will be contacting.)

Firm Name: _______________________ Address: _______________________________ Point of Contact: _____________________ Phone: _________________________________ Email: _______________________________________

GOVERNMENT USE

Date account opened: _________________________________________________________ Ratings: __________________ Amount: _______________ Balance: __________________ Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT C

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE COVER SHEET

(NOTE TO OFFEROR: For each past performance questionnaire to be completed by a client and submitted to the Government as a reference, provide a copy of this cover sheet with your proposal identifying the client’s point-of-contact information. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.)

1. OFFEROR: _______________________________________________________

2. FIRM BEING EVALUATED:___________________________________________

3. CONTRACT NUMBER:______________________________________________

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:___________________________________________

5. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER AMOUNT:__________________________________

6. PERFORMANCEPERIOD:____________________________________________

7. REFERENCE ORGANIZATION NAME:__________________________________

8. EVALUATOR’S CONTACT INFO:_______________________________________

a. NAME & TITLE:_____________________________________________________

b. PHONE NUMBER:___________________________________________________

c. FAX NUMBER:______________________________________________________

d. EMAIL ADDRESS:___________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT C

1. The NAVFAC Form PPQ shall be utilized for all evaluations that require a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

2. Offerors should submit the PPQ with their offer. 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 C), 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, Joe Loersch via email at joseph.loersch@navy.mil, prior to proposal closing date.

3. Offerors should provide PPQs with their proposal as required by the RFP. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ATTACHMENT C

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

ATTACHMENT D

Representations and…