N4008420R0056 Amendment 0003.pdf

ACQR5790576

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

N4008420R0056 Amendment 0003

See Page 2 for further details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Aug-2020

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 N4008420R0056

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Aug-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

28-Aug-2020

CODE

NAVFAC FAR EAST

CORE EXECUTION TEAM

PSC 473 BOX 13

FPO AP 96349-0013

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008420R0056

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003 INFO

The purpose of this Amendment 0003 is for the following:

1. Provide responses to the pre-proposal inquiries received as shown below.

No. Questions (Should include Specification Section or Drawing Reference)

Answers

2 We need additional time for carefully reviewing solicitation. In addition, the request for proposal (RFP) requires many documents.

It is hard for us to prepare these documents in a short duration. Is it possible to extend due date?

Please see Amendment 0003. The proposal due date is extended to 14 September 2020 at 2:30 PM Japan Standard Time.

3 What is the difference between PRICE PROPOSAL (Page 38 on the RFP) and NON- COST/PRICE PROPOSAL (Page 39 on the RFP)?

The work of this solicitation is non-recurring, therefore, we are applicable for NON-

COST/PRICE PROPOSAL?

Please see Paragraph E of the “Evaluation Factors for Award” section under “ADDENDA TO FAR 52.212-1” to see the difference between a Price proposal and Non-Cost/Price Proposal.

Paragraph b of the “Time Receipt of Proposals” section under “Instructions to offerors” in “ADDENDA TO FAR 52.212-1” states:

Non-price and price proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the “Evaluation Factors for Award” no later than the date and time provided in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1449 (unless revised by a formal amendment), “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” Form.

4 PRICE PROPOSAL shall include Standard Form 33, (Page 38 on the RFP Clause 1.a of VOLUME I) Where is the Standard Form 33. We can not find out that form.

Please see the revised Paragraph 1 under “Volume I – Price Proposal”.

2. Revise the proposal due date from 07 September 2020 to 14 September 2020 at 02:30 PM Japan Standard

Time.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDA TO FAR 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

TIME FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

a. Offerors shall comply with this “Instructions to Offerors”, “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items (Standard Form 1449)” and “Evaluation Factors for Award” in the preparation of Proposals. Offerors must thoroughly and fully review the solicitation and its attachments.

b. Non-price and price proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the “Evaluation Factors for

Award” no later than the date and time provided in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1449 (unless revised by a formal amendment), “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” Form.

Offerors are requested to hold proposed prices for 120 days after the date specified for receipt of proposals.

c. Proposals (with all required supporting documentation) shall be delivered by electronic mail (email) so as to arrive at the email address below prior to the time set for proposal closing date stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP), in order to be considered for award. No mail nor package delivery service will be accepted.

No email sent shall be larger than 4 MB in size. If the proposing company must send multiple emails, then each email must be labeled with the subject as “Email x of n”, where x is the unique number and n is the total number of emails. The time stamp of when the email is received by the Contracting Officer shall be official, so please provide enough time when sending to allow for possible server delays.

Proposals shall be emailed to the following address:

Contract Specialist, Mr. Joshua Kaimikaua Joshua.Kaimikaua@fe.navy.mil

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE/SITE VISIT

The Government does not anticipate providing a site visit at this time.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOLICITATION

All questions concerning this solicitation shall be addressed to Mr. Joshua Kaimikaua, via email at Joshua.Kaimikaua@fe.navy.mil, by 18 August 2020 at 4:30 PM Japan Standard Time (JST). Responses to inquiries will be provided in the form of an Amendment and posted to the website https://www.beta.sam.gov/.

The Government may not respond to inquiries submitted after the inquiry submission cut-off date. All inquiries shall be submitted using Attachment 3 Pre-Proposal Inquiry Form.

AMENDMENTS AND NOTICES TO THE SOLICITATION

Amendments and notices will be posted to the website https://www.beta.sam.gov/. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. Please note that notices do not change the solicitation. Changes to the solicitation can only be made by the issuance of amendments.

PROPOSAL CURRENCY

Proposals shall be priced only in Japanese Yen. Proposals not priced in Japanese yen shall be deemed non-responsive, and will not be eligible for award.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM)

System for Award Management prior to award of a Department of Defense contract. Contractors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements via the SAM accessed through https://beta.sam.gov/ or by calling 866-606-8220 or 334-206-7828 for international calls. A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor not registered in SAM.

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

NO ALTERNATE OR MULTIPLE PROPOSALS

Neither multiple proposals, nor proposal variations or options, nor alternate or alternative proposal will be considered in the evaluation.

NOTICE

UNITED STATES LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROHIBIT YOU FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING CONCERNING THIS SOLICITATION/CONTRACT:

BID RIGGING

PRICE FIXING

COLLUSIVE BIDDING

BID ROTATION OFFERING

GRATUTIES OFFERING OR

RECEIVING KICK-BACKS

THE PRICES IN YOUR OFFER MUST BE ARRIVED AT INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT ANY

CONSULTATION, COMMUNICATION, OR AGREEMENT WITH ANY OTHER OFFEROR OR

COMPETITOR. YOUR OFFER CANNOT BE DISCLOSED BY YOU DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO ANY

OTHER OFFEROR OR COMPETITOR BEFORE BID OPENING.

IT IS ALSO UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO INDUCE ANY OTHER COMPANY TO, OR ALLOW ANOTHER

COMPANY TO INDCUE YOU TO SUBMIT OR NOT SUBMIT AN OFFER FOR THE PURPOSE OF

RESTRICTING COMPETITION.

ALL OF THE ABOVE ACTS ARE ACTS OF DISHONESTY UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND

REGULATIONS AND ARE FORBIDDEN.

PENAL TIES COULD INCLUDE DEBARMENT OR SUSPENSION FROM DOING BUSINESS WITH ANY

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS AND RECOUPMENTOF

PRIOR MONIES PAID.

EVALUATION 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 contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

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

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

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

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

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

Significant Weakness

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

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

C. SAFETY EVALUATION

The evaluation of safety has been tailored specifically to meet the requirements and constraints of contract performance in Japan and is described in Section D, Evaluation Factors for Award.

D. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

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

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the 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.

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

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

(1) The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is relevant is unique to each LPTA source selection. For this solicitation, For this solicitation, a relevant project is defined in Section D Technical Factors under Factor 1 Corporate Experience.

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

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

E. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

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.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The price proposal and the non-cost/price proposal shall include page numbers and be clearly marked and organized to present a clear, concise offer.

Volume I – Price Proposal Volume II – Non-Cost/Price Proposal (Factors 1, 2 and 3)

VOLUME I – PRICE PROPOSAL:

1. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The price proposal shall include the following:

a. Completed Block 17a on Page 1 and Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) amounts on Pages 3 through 10 of the Standard Form 1449 Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commerical Items. All prices shall be in Japanese Yen.

b. Copies of all amendments (if applicable) acknowledged.

c. Completed Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) worksheet in Microsoft Excel format as provided in Attachment 3 to support the amounts specified for each CLIN on Pages 3 through 10 of the solicitation.

Although not part of the price evaluation, Offerors should also include the following items if available with their price proposal to assist the Government in validating eligibility to receive an award:

a. An informational page that contains the following information:

(i) Solicitation Number and Title

(ii) Prime Contractor name, address, phone number, point of contact, and email address

1) DUNS number

• DUNS Numbers are provided by Dun and Bradstreet's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Offerors can register for a DUNS number online at https://www.dnb.com/duns-number/get-a-duns.html. Offerors are not required to obtain a federal Tax Identification Number (TIN), also known as an Employer Identification Number (EIN). When registering, simply leave the TIN/EIN information blank. There is no cost to obtain a DUNS number. Offerors do not have to have a DUNS number to submit a proposal, however, one will be required before receiving an award.

2) Cage code

• Once registered in the System for Award Management or SAM (see instructions in part d.), an

Offeror can request a CAGE Code through the Defense Logistics at https://cage.dla.mil/. There is no cost to obtain a Cage code. Offerors do not have to have a Cage code to submit a proposal, however, one will be required before receiving an award.

b. A copy of current SAM registration

Offerors can register with SAM at http://www.sam.gov. Offerors do not have to be registered with SAM to submit a proposal, however, registration will be required before receiving an award.

c. Completed Representations and Certifications (found in Section K of the Solicitation)

d. A copy of a Joint Venture (JV) Agreement, Partnership Agreement and/or Teaming Agreement (if applicable). The JV or Partnership must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database as the JV or Partnership before receiving an award.

e. Financial Capability, in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 responsibility determination, a contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract. Offeror’s are requested to provide the company’s Dun & Bradstreet number (DUNS) and a copy of the latest three years complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. For Joint Venture arrangements discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies and if the Joint Venture has been in existence for less than three years, also provide the latest three years complete fiscal year financial statements for each member of the Joint Venture. The Government may also request additional documentation (i.e. evidence of availability of working/operating capital) to meet the requirements of FAR 9.104-1.

f. Executed FAR Provision 52.229-11.

g. Completed IRS Form W-14, Certificate of Foreign Contracting Party Receiving Federal Procurement

Payments, if applicable. If not submitted with the offer, exemptions will not be applied to any resulting contract and the Government will withhold a full 2 percent on each payment.

2. Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

ii. Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

iii. Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

iv. Comparison of market survey results.

VOLUME II – NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL (FACTORS 1, 2 AND 3):

1. Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit recent and relevant projects that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects using the Project Data Sheet (Attachment 4). A recent project is defined as a project (contract or task order) with at least one year of completion within the past seven (7) years of the issuance of this solicitation.

A relevant project is defined as a single project or multiple projects that collectively demonstrate experience on the following:

1) OHS Spill Response: Spill response activities include control, assessment, mitigation, containment, waste removal and disposal, site decontamination, site cleanup, sampling, and reporting in accordance to the Japan Environmental Governing Standards (JEGS).

- Total average annual contract value of 25,000,000 (JPY) or more by a single contract or multiple contracts

- No more than five (5) contracts shall be submitted

2) Worst Case Discharge (WCD)/Table-Top Training Exercise: WCD/Table-top Exercises include preparing training materials (in English and Japanese) and conducting WCD/Table-top Exercises. The tabletop exercise serves both as a planning and training tool to test USG initial spill response, notification and communication procedures, Offeror’s mobilization plan, and hypothetical WCD readiness.

- Total average annual contract value of 1,000,000 (JPY) or more by a single contract or multiple

3) Field Training Exercise: Field Training Exercises include preparing training materials (in English and

Japanese) and conducting field exercises pertaining to spill response. The field training exercise provides the USG spill response team professional instruction and training on the proper execution of controlling, mitigating, containing, decontaminating, and cleaning up spill sites.

- Total average annual contract value of 1,000,000 (JPY) or more by a single contract or multiple

If more than the maximum number of projects is submitted, the Government will only evaluate projects up to the maximum number authorized in the solicitation, excess will not be evaluated.

If the offeror has teaming partners, recent and relevant project experience should be submitted for projects performed by either the offeror or the teaming partner. The offeror needs to provide a copy of the teaming agreement. Offerors failing to provide a copy of the teaming agreement will be considered to have not met the requirements of the factor and shall be rated Unacceptable.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated recent and relevant corporate as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if collectively its submittals for “Corporate Experience” demonstrate experience involving the following:

1) OHS Spill Response for a total annual contract value of 25,000,000 (JPY) or more; and

2) WCD/Table-Top Training Exercise for a total annual contract value of 10,000,000 (JPY) or more; and

3) Field Training Exercise or a total annual contract value of 10,000,000 (JPY) or more.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if it fails to meet the requirements to be rated acceptable described above.

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

2. Factor 2, Safety:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative no more than 2 single-sided (1 double-sided) pages that demonstrates its commitment to safely accomplishing the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and will properly manage and implement safety procedures and accident prevention methods. The narrative should address each of the following topics:

1) the offeror’s method for selecting a subcontractor with a safe performance record;

2) the offeror’s safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work;

3) the offeror’s methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates accident prevention techniques and processes, and employee reporting of unsafe conditions and unsafe activities.

The Government is seeking to determine whether the information contained in the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures and accident prevention methods for itself and its subcontractors.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if it demonstrates a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures and accident prevention methods for itself and its subcontractors.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if it fails to meet the requirements to be rated acceptable described above.

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

3. Factor 3, Past Performance:

Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of past performance on contracts/projects that demonstrates experience in performing work similar to that described in the definition of a relevant project under Factor 1, Corporate Experience. The offeror shall submit past performance information for each project included in its proposal for Factor 1, Corporate Experience. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as Attachment 4 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Corporate Experience. An offeror should not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact on the PPQ. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 4), 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, Mr. Joshua Kaimikaua, via email at Joshua.Kaimikaua@fe.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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 4 single-sided (2 double-sided) pages in total.

Performance recognition/award(s) or additional similar information submitted will not be considered.

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

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/DUNS 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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), 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.

The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the requirement 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 relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience 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 past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

1) A pattern of successful completion of task;

2) A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

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

4) Recency of task 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 PPQs, Attachment 4,

2) An overall rating of at least Satisfactory or better in CPARS or other DOD or Government appraisal systems, or

3) Past Performance Evaluations from telephone interview of Satisfactory or better.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable”.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if it fails to meet the requirements to be rated acceptable described above.

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

(End of Summary of Changes)