N40084-23-R-0052 AMD 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See continuation page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-May-2023

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N4008423R0052

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Apr-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

25-May-2023

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:

N4008423R0052

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:

The purpose of this amendment:

1. Section M – Evaluation Factor for Award, M2(3)(b)(2) Factor 2 – Experience is revised.

2. EXHIBIT A - Experience Project Data Sheet is revised and replaced with EXIBIT_A_Experience Project Datat Sheet dated 230524.

3. Attachment 2 – ELINS dated 230518 is revised to Attachment 2 – ELINS dated 230524.

4. The proposal due date is revised from June 5, 2023, 2:00 PM Japan Standard Time (JST) to June 8, 2023, 2:00 PM JST.

5. All other provisions and conditiosn remain unchanged.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 05-Jun-2023 02:00 PM to 08-Jun-2023 02:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1. 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 proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

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

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

4. Factor 4 (safety) will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 4, then they will not be considered for award unless corrected through discussions. Technical factors (Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Factor 2 - Experience) when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3 - Past Performance) rating; and technical factors (Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Factor 2 – Experience) and the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3 - Past Performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. A proposal containing an Unacceptable rating will be considered unawardable, unless the Unacceptable rating is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

M2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1– Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4– Safety (acceptable/unacceptable)

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, 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. Factor 4 (safety) will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 4, then they will not be considered for award unless corrected through discussions. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (technical approach and experience) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment Factor 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors (1 – technical approach and 2 - experience) and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall submit either a hard copy proposal (Technical proposal: one (1) original, one (1) copy, and one (1) Compact Disk (CD) copy. Price proposal: one (1) original and one (1) Compact Disk (CD) copy. The price and technical proposal in 3-ring binders shall be clearly marked in separate folders. One (1) CD may contain both the Price and Technical proposals.); or an electronic proposal (price and technical shall be separate files) through the Department of Defense (DoD) Solicitation Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). If both a hard copy (including CD copy) and an electronic copy are submitted, the electronic copy submitted in PIEE shall govern. If the paper copy (paper copy consists of the one (1) original and one (1) copy) and the CD copy are submitted, the CD copy shall govern. Each copy of the price proposal shall include a separate tab for each item specified below:

a. Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, including price proposals, Part B. 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 provided in Attachment J-0200000-14 to support the amounts specified for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) in Section B of the solicitation. In the event that there is a difference between the hard copy and the Microsoft Excel format version of the price proposal, the hard copy price proposal will be held to be the intended offer and the total of the CLINs, SLINs, ELINs will be recomputed accordingly.

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

(i) Offeror Letter which includes at a minimum, but not limited to:

- Solicitation number

- Offeror’s name, address, telephone, and email address

- CAGE Code

- Name, title, telephone number and email address of person(s) authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror in connection with this solicitation.

- Name, title, telephone numbers and email address of person(s) authorized to sign contractual documents on behalf of the Offeror in connection with this solicitation and any resultant contracts, task orders, or modifications.

(ii) Representations and Certifications – Offeror is to submit a conformed copy of Representations/Certifications in the system for Award Management (SAM) and any additional provisions contained within the Solicitation.

(iii) Latest Financial Statement.

- Offerors shall provide evidence of financial capability in accordance with, FAR 9.104- 1, Responsibility Determination, a contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract.

- Offerors shall submit 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.

- In additional to the above, submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract.

-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.

- Completed IRS Form W-14, Certificate of Foreign Contracting Party Receiving Federal Procurement Payments, if applicable. If not submitted with the offer, excise tax exemptions will not be applied to any resulting contract and the Government will withhold a full 2 percent of 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.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Factor 1 Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide a narrative, no longer than ten (10) single sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, and 10-point font or larger, that addresses each of the following four (4) components separately. Pages in excess of 10 will not be evaluated. The ten (10) page limit applies to Factor 1 – Technical Approach; however, the page limit does not count the resume pages, joint venture agreements, partnership agreements, teaming agreements, and letters of commitment. Pages in excess of the ten (10) page limit will not be evaluated. The “10-point font or larger” requirement does not apply to the organizational chart; however, all text must be reasonably legible to the Government, unassisted. Text that is not legible will not be reviewed.

1) Overall Workload Management Approach:

(a) Describe the overall management approach, methods and techniques for efficiently and effectively accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of the required services (i.e multi-functional annexes/sub-annexes as described in the PWS);

(b) Identify risks that you anticipate during performance of the contract and discuss strategy for mitigating, including, but not limited to, performance risk, schedule risk, and cost risk; and

(c) Discuss the approach to handle surges to successfully meet the contract requirements for recurring and non-recurring work specifically for: (i) Facilities and Utilities Investments Operations, Maintenance, and Repairs; (ii) Infrastructure Condition Assessment Program (ICAP) and Utility Infrastructure Condition Assessment Program (UICAP) Services; (ii) Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Response and Cleanup Services.

2) Organizational Structure:

(a) The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart, which includes the prime contractor and all subcontractors for the total effort of the base period and all options, if exercised. The organizational chart should clearly demonstrate the lines of management authority and supervision, including relationships between corporate and on-site management/administration, and prime and subcontractors. The Offeror shall provide rationale for such arrangements.

- In addition, the Offeror shall provide a signed joint venture agreement, a signed partnership agreement, a signed teaming agreement, or a signed letter of commitment for each entity (e.g. Joint Venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) listed on the organizational chart. If the offeror is using subcontractor corporate experience and past performance in Factors 2 and/or 3 it must be included in the organizational chart, and will be subject to Enforceability of Proposal as described in the subject RFP.

3) Quality Control Management:

(a) The Offeror shall provide a summary “Quality Management System” that describes the Offerors approach to 1) Quality Control; 2) Quality Assurance; 3) methods and process to ensure performance standards are met; and 4) ensure appropriate training and licensing/certification programs are in place.

4) Logistics and Supply Chain Management:

(a) The Offeror shall describe their logistics/supply chain process, methodology, and capabilities to ensure mission needs for both recurring and non-recurring services as described in the PWS are met with consideration for Okinawa, Japan’s isolated geographic location.

(b) The offeror shall also demonstrate the capability to flex and grow inventories and capability in response to emergent requirements.

(c) The Offeror shall describe its methodology for selecting, monitoring, and managing subcontractors, and how each will be integrated in the services delivered throughout contract performance.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Offeror’s management approach should address and demonstrate an understanding of the information required in components 1 through 4 as listed in the submittal requirements above.

Specifically, Offerors will be evaluated on: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates

1) Overall Workload Management Approach;

(a) A management approach, methods, and techniques for efficiently and effectively accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of the required services.

(b) An effective strategy for mitigating risks.

(c) Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they demonstrate their ability to successfully handle surges to meet contract requirements for the recurring and non-recurring work identified in Factor 1, (i)1)(c).

2) Organizational Structure;

(a) Through the organizational chart and rationale, the lines of management authority and supervision arrangements between corporate and on-site management/administration, and prime and subcontractors to support all processes and methodologies included in the PWS.

3) Quality Control Management; and

(a) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approaches and methodologies to ensure performance standards are met through implementation of its quality management system.

4) Logistics and Supply Chain Management.

(a) Logistics and supply chain management for efficiently and effectively accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of the required services.

Approaches that demonstrate a thorough or outstanding understanding of the complexity and magnitude of the requirements, to include operational risks and surges that will result in exceeding the PWS requirements, may be considered more favorably.

Offerors that demonstrate existing supplier/subcontractor teaming arrangements which may positively impact its capability to deliver quality products and services in a timely fashion may be considered more favorably.

Quality Management System that addresses quality improvement processes and programs may be considered more favorably.

(2) Factor 2 – Experience

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a MAXIMUM of eight (8) projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. Annex 1500000 – Facilities Support and Annex 1600000 – Utilities will be evaluated at the sub-annex level. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

1. Scope: Performance of services in at least two (2) functional annexes/sub-annexes listed in the Solicitations’ PWS. Performance in functional annexes/sub-annexes is described as performance in other than performance of Annex 0100000 – General Information and Annex 0200000 – Management and Administration. A combination of projects occurring at the same time that demonstrate at least two (2) functional annexes/sub-annexes listed in the Solicitation’s PWS may be used to satisfy the functional annexes/sub-annexes requirements. The same time is defined as at least six (6) months of overlap. Any project submitted to satisfy the scope will be subject to the size and recency requirements in Factor 2 – Experience.

Projects submitted with only Annex 0100000 – General Information and/or Annex 0200000 – Management and Administration services shall NOT be considered to demonstrate relevant experience.

2. Size: A project value of at least ¥100,000,000 or $1,000,000 annually for the specific functional annexes/sub-annexes listed in the Solicitation’s PWS. A combination of projects occurring at the same time with an aggregate annual value of ¥100,000,000 or $1,000,000 may be used to satisfy the ¥100,000,000 or $1,000,000 threshold. The same time is defined as at least six (6) months of overlap. Any project submitted to satisfy the ¥100,000,000 or $1,000,000 size standard will be subject to the scope and recency requirements in Factor 2 – Experience.

3. Recency: Be completed within the past eight (8) years of the issuance of the RFP or have at least one (1) year of project performance completed by the closing date of RFP. Projects completed more than eight

(8) years before the closing date for proposals will not be considered recent and relevant.

Notes:

Any projects submitted in excess of eight (8) will not be considered. If more than eight (8) projects are submitted, only the first eight (8) shall be considered.

A project is defined as a 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; instead Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Facilities Support Contract Data Sheet (EXHIBIT A) 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, the total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages (or one and half (1.5) double-sided pages). If an Offeror’s is using a combination of projects to satisfy the scope and size standards, the Offeror shall identify the specific projects combined.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project on the Facilities Support Contract Data Sheet

SHALL:

1. Clearly describe the scope of work performed

2. Clearly describe the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., the relevant Annex(s) in this RFP)

3. Clearly indicate the relevant work’s project value performed by the Offeror*.

*The “Offeror” is defined as the exact name in Block 15A of the Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the JV members. If a project was performed by a JV, and not all partners from that JV are on the JV proposed for this contract, the Offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV member offering on this contract and shall not include work performed by the JV as a whole. The JV member proposed for this contract shall specifically address field work performed by that JV member including field staffing and direct field work oversight.

The Offeror shall also submit a SIGNED copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors are still limited to a total of eight (8) 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 SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. 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.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment, for the term of the basic contract and all options if exercised, and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation

Offerors will be evaluated on recent and relevant experience involving at least two (2) functional annexes included in the PWS excluding work for Annex 0100000 – General Information and Annex 0200000 – Management and Administration. The Government will take into consideration the complexity of experiences.

Offerors that demonstrate considerable depth of experience, breadth of experience, and multi-functional management in a greater number of functional Annexes may be considered more favorably.

Offerors demonstrating experience in Facilities and Utilities operations, maintenance, and repairs;

Infrastructure Condition Assessment Program (ICAP) / Utility Infrastructure Condition Assessment (UICAP) Services; and Spill response may be considered more favorably.

Offerors possessing experience in Okinawa, Japan may be considered more favorably.

Offerors possessing experience performing contracts with the U.S. Government may be considered more favorably.

A subcontractor’s experience may not be given the same weight as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner.

Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be considered less favorably.

(3) Factor 3- Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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 in Factor 2. The offeror shall submit past performance information for each project included in its proposal for Factor 2, 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 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 should not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is 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 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, Mr. Ross Yamato, via email at ross.w.yamato.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall not exceed 1 double-sided page or 2 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 recognition/award(s) or additional similar 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/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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

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 2 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, 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 record in terms of quality, schedule and management.

The Government may use information such as (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source.

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.

Offerors with unknown past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Past performance ratings of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” hold more value than a “Neutral Confidence” rating and will be considered more favorably in the evaluation of past performance.

(4) Factor 4, Safety (Acceptable/Unacceptable):

1. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: 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 Solicitation and how it will properly manage and implement safety procedures and accident prevention methods. The narrative should address each of the following topics:

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

(ii) the offeror’s plan to monitor and oversee the safety compliance and performance of self‐performed and subcontractor performed work;

(iii) 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.

2. Basis of Evaluation:

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)