19R8401_A0001.pdf

ACQR5391356A

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

Solicitation No. N40084-19-R-8401 Title: Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Aw ard Construction Contract for Small Magnitude Size Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Requirements (Mini-MACC) at the U.S. Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi, Japan; U.S. Marine Corps combined Arms Training Center (CATC) Camp Fuji, Japan; U.S. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (ALF), Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan; and other various locations in Kanto Plains operational area, Japan

Description of this amendment continued on page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Dec-2018

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 N4008419R8401

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Nov-2018

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Dec-2018

CODE

NAVFAC FAR EAST

FEAD ATSUGI

PSC 477 BOX 15

FPO AP 96306-0001

N40084 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008419R8401

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

(1) The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to submitted questions as follows:

Question No. QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 (SEED Project) There are ceiling access hatches for maintenance purpose for some existing FCUs but we think the ceiling access hatch will be necessary for each FCU as all FCUs are replaced this time considering maintenance & emergency response because you need to remove front panel to open/close the valves for inspection for FCUs without the ceiling access hatch. Please advise the quantity of ceiling access hatch if necessary.

It is NOTrequired to provide new ceiling access hatches. The existing FCU has inspection panels to carry out maintenance.

2 (SEED Project) There are some marks of dew condensation on the ceiling around existing FCU. Please advice if repair (replacement) of condensation portion of the ceiling is included in the contract or not.

Repair/replacement of condensation portions of the ceiling is NOT required and will NOT be included in the scope.

3 (SEED Project) Drawing M1, M2. For room 126, the drawing states FCU‐3, however another document states FCU‐2. Please clarify. Where is document?

Please see the revised drawing (M2). Room 126 is FCU‐2.

4 (SEED Project) For efficiency and managing, can the contractor install a new inspection door/access door?

See the Government's Response to Question #1.

5 (SEED Project) For curing purposes on access ways, can the contractor set initially and maintain until project is finished?

Yes, it is required that the Contractor provide a curing sheet not that is not a hindrance to firefighters.

6 (SEED Project) Will the contractor laydown area be close to the job site?

Yes, the contractor laydown area is close to the job site. This will be discussed further during the pre‐ construction meeting after award of the task order.

7 (SEED Project) Will the contractor parking lot be close to the job site? Are there limits to vehicles?

Yes, the contractonr's parking lot will be close to the job site. The contractor can make a request to include a certain number of vehicles and it will be finalized during the pre‐construction meeting after award of the task order.

8 (SEED Project) Attachment_SeedSpecDwg_Part2 ASBESTOS INVENTORY SUMMERY BUILDING 1445 (pg.

2, 8, 9). For places that are not listed in the ASBESTOS INVENTORY SUMMARY, should contractor perform sampling of the asbestos according to necessity?

Ex)1445‐T‐05, 06, 11, 12, 13, 14

It is NOT required to perform additional ACM sampling if it is not listed in the inventory summary.

9 (MACC solicitation) RFP Page 7 (Section II.5). Can we use ABB (asset‐backed bond) for the bid bond and performance bond?

A company who owns mining rights/mining lease is registered with the Government of Japan. Mining rights are legally considered real property and fall under the same regulations. The ABB (Asset Backed Bond) is issued by the company who owns this exclusive right.

The registered item is governed by the METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry), and the mining and mining lease company will issue the ABB.

There will be a certificate verified by a CPA that is attached. It states the ABB is a Securities item.

If the contract is a not fulfilled, the mining rights company will cover the debt.

Please refer FAR 28.203‐2(c).

Unfortunately, the asset (mining rights/mining lease) appears to fall within the category of unacceptable assets included in FAR 28.203‐2(c).

10 (MACC solicitation) RFP Page 11 (D.2(a)c. Document states 00 21 00 paragraph 1.4 for lump sum price, however ITEM NO 0001 is under section 00 10 00.

Please clarify.

Per the RFP, the lump sum price should be on a price sheet that is signed and dated. Please do not include price under Section 00 10 00.

(2) Revised the following in the RFP.

Section 00 10 00 – Solicitation Section 00 21 00 – Instructions Paragraph II.5 Section 00 21 00 – Instructions Paragraph III. A Section 00 21 00 – Instructions Paragraph IV.d. (b) a) c.

(3) The closing date of 8 January 2019 10:00 AM JST is unchanged.

(4) All other terms and conditions reamin the same.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

CLIN 0001

The unit of issue has changed from Each to Project.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 00

I. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION

1. The Government intends to award up to five (5) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Construction Contract for Small Magnitude Size Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Requirements (Mini-MACC) at the U.S. Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi, Japan; U.S. Marine Corps combined Arms Training Center (CATC) Camp Fuji, Japan; U.S. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (ALF), Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan; and other various locations in Kanto Plains operational area, Japan, with firm-fixed-price task orders. The contract term is five (5) year ordering period. The minimum guarantee is 3,000,000 JPY per contract, except one will be awarded the seed project, which will also serve as the minimum guarantee. Once the minimum guarantee has been met, the amount will be deobligated. The not-to-exceed amount for the life of all the contract awards combined is $49,000,000.

2. The scope of work specified in a task order issued under this contract may include, but is not limited to, office renovation, building demolition, built-in equipment repair/replacement, piping repair/replacement, pipe lagging, electrical work, mechanical work, road pavement, fencing, roofing, painting, site work, removal and disposal of lead based paint and asbestos containing material, welding and masonry related work at NAF Atsugi, CATC Camp Fuji, ALF Kisarazu, and other various locations in Kanto Plains operational area, Japan. Refer to Attachment 1- NAVFAC Specification: Multiple Award Construction Contract at the U.S. Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi, Japan; U.S. Marine Corps combined Arms Training Center (CATC) Camp Fuji, Japan; U.S. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (ALF), Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan; and other various locations in Kanto Plains operational area, Japan.

The contractor shall provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials and equipment required to perform construction projects specified in each task order.

3. There is one (1) seed project included in this solicitation, which will be awarded as a task order at the time of award of the IDIQ contracts. This task order shall serve as the minimum guarantee to the responsive, responsible contractor offering the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for the seed project. The seed project is to Replace Fan Coil Unit (FCU) at Bldg. No. 1445 at NAF Atsugi, Japan, Attachment 2 – NAVFAC Specification for Seed Project.

The project was selected as the seed project from existing requirements to best represent the nature of potential work under this contract. Per FAR 36.204, the magnitude of the projects combined is between 25,000,000 JPY and 50,000,000 JPY. In accordance with the Liquidated Damages Table in Subpart 11.502 of Naval Facilities Acquisition Supplement (NFAS), the liquidated damage amount for this requirement is 20,000 JPY per calendar day.

II. INSTRUCTION, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO THE OFFEROR

1. INCORPORATION OF PROPOSAL

The Contractor’s proposal, including revisions and amendments, made prior to contract award and a copy of which is in the possession of both parties, shall be incorporated into this contract upon award by reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full text. In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this contract and the proposal, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (i) the contract (excluding the technical proposal) and then (ii) the proposal.

2. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of the contract. By submissions of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, materials, design concept, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any prior substitutions shall require Contracting Officer’s approval.

3. FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

This acquisition is solicited on an unrestricted basis using full and open competition.

4. RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION / PRE-AWARD SURVEY

FAR 9.104 requires prospective contractors to demonstrate, among other things, that they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract of ability to obtain them, capability to comply with the required performance schedule, a satisfactory performance record, and be otherwise eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. The pre-award survey is not a part of the technical evaluation.

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey of the offeror to determine whether such offeror is qualified and capable of performing the contract. The pre-award survey may involve examination of the offeror's financial and technical status and understanding of the contract requirements.

The following are examples of the information that, upon request, the offerors shall be required to provide in writing to the pre-award survey team. Requested information shall be forwarded within three (3) days upon request or as indicated on the letter from the Contracting Officer. Failure to provide requested information, or a determination, after review of the information, of the offeror's non-responsibility, may result in rejection of the proposal.

i. Identification of the Contractor's personnel and management to be used on this contract.

ii. The Contractor's technical and management plans for performing required services.

iii. Description of Contractor's facilities and equipment.

iv. Summary of the Contractor's experience in performing work of the type required by this specification.

v. Current financial statements and data.

vi. Other work presently under contract.

vii. Prior contracts for similar work, and the names and addresses of individuals with the organization issuing the contract who ma y be contacted for information concerning the Contractor's performance.

viii. Contractor Quality Control plan for this contract.

5. BID GUARANTEE AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS

A bid guarantee and performance bond are required by this solicitation. See, FAR 52.228-1 and 52.228-15 and NFAS 5252.228-9305 for details. Corporations executing bid and performance bonds as sureties will be considered acceptable if they have received official approval to do so from the Ministry of Finance, Government of Japan, notwithstanding any requirement stated elsewhere that such corporations be approved by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Guarantees by Japanese banks executed on will also be accepted where authorized under Japanese banking laws. Individual sureties will only be permitted where the offeror proposing an individual to act as surety complies with FAR 52.228-11 herein and the Government, in its discretion, determines the individual surety to be acceptable for purposes of this procurement. Japanese sureties (whether corporations, banks or individuals) are requested to register with NAVFAC Far East prior to issuing any bond. Refer to FAR 52.228-1 for Government acceptable forms of firm commitments.

The company name and address of Bid bond (SF24) and Performance Bond (SF25) should be matched with the company name and address on the bid form. Bond Company or Bank should register to the contracting office before they issue the bond. If they don’t register to the contracting office, their bond will be rejected. If the contractor wants to use the check for bond, the issue office should be Bank or financial (banking) institution. We cannot accept the check issue by the offerors.

Electronic copy of SF24 can be downloaded at below URL: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115982 Electronic copy of SF25 can be downloaded at below URL: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115986

6. SAM REGISTRATION

Contractors must be registered and have an active status in the System for Award Management (SAM) database to be eligible for award. For more information please go to https://www.sam.gov/.

7. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Offerors shall complete electronic annual Representations and Certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at https://www.sam.gov/.

8. CONTRACTOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

Any contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded and performed in its entirety in the country of Japan.

Contractors must be duly authorized to operate and conduct business in Japan and must fully comply with all laws, decrees, labor standards, and regulations of Japan during the performance of the contract. Prior to award of any contract, offerors must be registered to do business and possess a construction license (Kensetsu Gyo Kyoka) issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, or prefectural government. Offerors will be required to provide verification on such construction license prior to award of any contract to the contracting officer if such information is not already on file with or available to the contracting officer.

Furthermore, the U.S. Government will not offer “United States Official Contractor” status under Article XIV of the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to any offeror awarded a contract under this solicitation; nor will the U.S. Government certify any employees of a contractor as “Members of the Civilian Component” under Article I(b) of the SOFA.

9. AMENDMENTS

Amendments will be posted to the website https://asia.neco.navy.mil/. Hard copies of the amendment will not be mailed. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation.

NOTE: Offerors must acknowledge any and all amendments issued under this solicitation either by annotating it on the SF1442 or signing each SF30 (amendment) and submitting it with the bid.

10. INCURRED EXPENSES

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

11. NO ALTERNATE OR MULTIPLE BIDS

Neither a multiple bids, nor bid variations or options, nor alternate or alternative bids will be considered in the evaluation.

12. JOINT VENTURE OFFERORS

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, demonstrate the relationship between firms, and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture. The joint venture also needs to complete the representations and certifications for each joint venture member as well as for the joint venture itself. All bid documents shall include the name of the JV to be considered for evaluation.

NOTE 1: An offeror proposing as a joint venture also needs to complete the online representations and certifications for each joint venture member as well as for the joint venture entity itself.

NOTE 2: All submittals and any bonds or guarantees submitted with the bid must be in the name of the Joint Venture or else your bid may be determined to be ineligible for award. The Contracting Officer, at his/her discretion, may request additional information on the Joint Venture as needed in order to determine the offerors responsible and eligible for award.

13. OFFER CURRENCY

Offers shall be priced only in Japanese Yen.

14. PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES

All questions concerning this solicitation shall be addressed to NAVFAC FE PWD Atsugi FEAD, Ms. Miki Masuda at Miki.Masuda.JA@fe.navy.mil. Responses to inquiries will be provided in the form of an Amendment and posted to the https://asia.neco.navy.mil/ website. The end date for any question submittal shall be on or before Monday, 10 December 2018 at 3:00PM Japan Standard Time or as amended. Questions submitted after that time may not be answered. Please submit any questions to the Government using Attachment 4, Pre-Proposal Inquiry form.

III. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as follows. A total of one (1) original, three (3) hard copies and one (1) compact disk shall be furnished for both Phase One and Phase Two. The original proposal shall be marked as “Original” on the cover of the proposal. A cover letter shall accompany the proposal. Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall be in English. The Price Proposal and Non- Price/Technical Proposal shall be submitted in separate volumes with a cover letter which shall include:

1. Solicitation Number

2. The Name, Address, Telephone and Facsimile Numbers, and Email Addresses of the offeror;

3. The Names, Titles, Telephone and Facsimile Numbers (and Email Address, if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

4. The Name, Title, and Signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) or three (3) ring binders or bound, with tabs or separators. Page limits, if stipulated must be adhered to as indicated in each Evaluation Factor. Any pages exceeding the specified number indicated in each Evaluation Factor will not be evaluated. Proposals shall be submitted on size A4 paper or letter size (8.5” x 11” paper). The format for the proposal is as follows:

VOLUME I

Cover Letter Table of Contents First two pages of the SF1442—with blocks 14 through 20C completed Signed Amendments (if applicable) Joint Venture Agreement or Partnership Agreement (if applicable).

Representations/Certifications Price for SEED Project Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR 52.228-1

VOLUME II

Tab 1: Factor 1, Corporate Experience (including Attachment 5) Tab 2: Factor 2, Safety Tab 3: Factor 3, Past Performance (including Attachment 6, if applicable)

Representations & Certifications will not be rated. However, they will be considered in assessing the Offeror’s responsibility.

B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The proposal shall be submitted on or before Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 10:00AM Japan Standard Time or as amended. Proposals shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 and requirements for this section. The sealed package should be marked in the bottom right corner “PROPOSAL SUBMITTED FOR RFP N40084-19-R-8401.”

Offerors shall submit the proposal to the following address:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Far East PWD Atsugi, FEAD ACQ Attention: Ms. Miki Masuda

PSC 477 BOX 15, FPO AP 96306

Bldg. 89, NAF Atsugi Ayase-shi, Kanagawa, Japan 252-1101

C. Only offers received by mail, base authorized courier, or base authorized contractor representative on or before the closing date and time specified in the solicitation or as amended will be considered. Electronic (E-mail, facsimile, etc.) submissions are not authorized. If escort service or pick up of proposals from the main gate is desired, contact Ms. Miki Masuda at miki.masuda.ja@fe.navy.mil by Monday, 7 January 2019 at 3:00

PM.

IV. EVALAUTION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR 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 basic contracts up to five (5) responsive, responsible offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposals. The seed project shall be awarded to the responsive, responsible contractor offering the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for the seed project.

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

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

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

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The following adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used for each technical factor.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

2. The following definitions will be used with the technical ratings above.

Definitions

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

Significant Weakness

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

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The following table will be used for the past performance.

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

D. EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors, as follows:

Factor 1—Corporate Experience Factor 2—Safety Factor 3—Past Performance

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirement for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete and submit the following information in Volume I of the proposal:

a. Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). Offeror shall complete blocks 14 through 20c. Offer must complete blocks 15a, 15b, and 15c. Offeror must include the name and title of person authorized to sign the offer.

b. Signed Amendments (if applicable)

c. Lump sum price for the SEED Project referenced in Section 00 21 00 Paragraph 1.4 of the solicitation. Offeror must sign and date the price sheet for the seed project.

Price shall be submitted in Japanese Yen.

d. Representations and Certifications—Offeror is to complete Section 00 45 00 of the RFP and submit a conformed copy of Representations/Certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM).

e. Latest Financial Statement (Kessan Hohkoku sho).

f. Joint Venture Agreement or Partnership Agreement (if applicable). The JV or

Partnership must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database as the JV or Partnership. Failure to submit the Joint Venture Agreement or Partnership Agreement may result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as not compliant with the RFP.

g. Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR 52.228-1. The bid guarantee shall be in the name of the offeror identified on the SF1442.

h. Letter from bonding agent or surety indicating single and aggregate bonding capacity for task order awards under this contract OR a letter from the Offeror, bonding agent, or surety documenting the Offeror’s inability to obtain bonding and reason(s) why.

While bonding capacity is not required to be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, it will be considered as a part of the responsibility determination in order to ensure the Offeror is generally able to submit performance bonds, when required, for task orders issued to them within the Ordering Limitations identified in the IDIQ.

i. A copy of the Offeror’s construction license (Kensetsu Gyo Kyoka) issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Tourism or prefectural government. The construction license will be considered as part of the responsibility determination in order to ensure the offeror is duly authorized to operate and conduct construction business in Japan.

j. Electronic Proposal (1 each CD) Save in a CD-ROM both SF1442, Technical Proposal and Price proposal in an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not combine technical proposal and price proposal in one file name.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price for the seed project. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

b. Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

c. Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

d. Comparison of market survey results.

Note: Any offeror not providing the information specified in the price submittal requirements will be deemed non-compliant with the requirement of this RFP and may not be considered for award.

(b) Technical Factors:

a) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

a. This factor involves an assessment of the Offeror’s experience in terms of recency and relevancy, as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

b. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information in Volume II “TAB 1” of the technical proposal binder.

i. A minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) construction projects (using the provided OFFEROR EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET (Attachment 5)) that that meet the DEFINITION

OF A RELEVANT PROJECT.

DEFINITION OF A RELEVANT PROJECT: A relevant project is a project tha demonstartes the offeror’s capability to perform services similar in size, scope, and complexity as described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). For purposes of this evaluation, a recent, relevant project is defined as follows:

A. A projet perormed in Japan;

B. A project with a contract completion date within the past seven (7) year of the issuance of this solicitation or an ongoing project with more than 80% of the period of performance complete;

C. A project with a total contract value of ¥5,000,000 or greater.

NOTE: The attached OFFEROR EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET (Attachment 5) 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 two (2) double-sided page (or four (4) single-sided pages). Any data submitted in excess of the two (2) double-sided page or four (4) single-sided pages will not be considered/evaluated. Offerors failing to use and submit Attachment 5 will be considered to have not met the requirements of Factor 1 and shall be rated Unacceptable.

NOTE: The project descriptions included in Attachment 5 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). Offerors failing to submit the information requested will be considered to have not met the requirements of Factor 1 and shall be rated Unacceptable.

For Joint Venture (JV) Offeror’s a copy of the joint-venture agreement(s) and projects completed by the JV entity or the JV partners. JV Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Offerors failing to provide a copy of the JV agreement and projects completed by the JV entity or from each and all JV partners will be considered to have not met the requirements of Factor 1 and shall be rated Unacceptable.

Where an Offeror is/was a JV and would like to submit a project completed by the

JV as a single entity to show the single entity's experience/capability, said JV project must clearly demonstrate the percentage of work performed by each firm in the JV and the single entity Offeror must provide a detailed description of the work the single entity self-performed under the JV project in Attachment 5. Offerors failing to submit the information requested will be considered to have not met the requirements of Factor 1 and shall be rated Unacceptable.

For an Offeror 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 in order for the past performance information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Offerors failing to submit the information requested will be considered to have not met the requirements of Factor 1 and shall be rated Unacceptable. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered.

A project is defined as 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 task order as a project.

c. Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has met the submittal requirements under Factor 1 and if the information contained in the offeror’s proposal meets the

DEFINITION OF A RELEVANT PROJECT.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Corporate Experience” contains a minimum of three (3) construction projects [using the provided OFFEROR CORPORATE EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET (Attachment 5)] that meet the DEFINITION OF A RELEVANT PROJECT. Offerors must also meet the following requirements in order to be rated Acceptable:

The three (3) projects submitted shall cumulatively demonstrate work experience in each of the following areas:

1. Architectural work;

2. Civil work;

3. Electrical work;

4. Mechanical work;

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Corporate Experience” contains a minimum of three (3) construction projects (using the provided OFFEROR EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET (Attachement 5)) that that meet the DEFINITION OF A RELEVANT PROJECT.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Corporate Experience” fails to meet the minimum requirements to be rated “Acceptable” as identified above.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Factor 1 will be ineligible for award.

b) Factor 2, Safety:

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information in Volume II, “TAB 2” of the technical proposal binder:

Technical Approach for Safety: A narrative describing in detail the following:

i. The Offeror’s plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors;

ii. The safety management system that the Offeror will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work;

iii. Any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels (desired but not required); and

iv. The Offeror’s methodology to execute an effective safety program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

The technical approach to safety narrative shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). Safety narratives for joint ventures may be up to two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in length. Pages in excess of the page limit specified above will not be considered/evaluated.

b. Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontracts.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Safety” describes in detail the following:

i. The Offeror’s plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors;

ii. The safety management system that the Offeror will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work;

iii. Any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels (desired but not required); and

iv. The Offeror’s methodology to execute an effective safety program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Safety” fails to meet the requirements to be rated “Acceptable” as identified above.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Factor 2 will be ineligible for award.

c) Factor 3, Past Performance:

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information in Volume II “TAB 3” of the technical proposal binder 2. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of performance on contracts/projects that demonstrates experience in performing work similar to that described in the DEFINITION OF A RELEVANT PROJECT shown above.

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

PROPOSAL FOR EACH PROJECT INCLUDED IN FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE. AN OFFEROR

SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, then submit the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 6, for each project included in Factor 1 – Corporate Experience.

The Offeror should provide completed PPQ in the proposal. 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. If the offerors are unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for the project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/reference to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Miki Masuda, via email at miki.masuda.ja@fe.navy.mil .

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

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.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

b. Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will consider how well the Offeror performed on recent and relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Offeror’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

The Government will evaluate 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.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if an Offeror’s “Past Performance” information demonstrates: (1) An overall rating of at least Satisfactory or better on the Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment 5 of this RFP, (2) and overall rating of Satisfactory or better in the CPARS or other DOD or Government appraisal systems, or (3) Past Performance Evaluations from telephone interviews of Satisfactory or better.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if an Offeror’s submittal for “Past Performance” fails to meet the requirements to be rated “Acceptable” as identified above.

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

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Factor 3 will be ineligible for award.

(End of Summary of Changes)