N40085-14-R-0004.pdf

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Multiple Aw ard Construction Contract for General Construction Contracts, including Design Build and Design Bid Build Projects.

This is 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The NAICS Code is 236220 w ith a size standard of $33.5M

KIMBERLY C. KAISER 207-438-4617

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

06-Nov-2013

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

X

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______15 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________3 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________10 Dec 2013 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

PWD MAINE - FEAD PORTSMOUTH

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD

BLDG 59

PORTSMOUTH NH 03801-2032

N40085

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

N40085-14-R-0004 39

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

N40085-14-R-0004

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0001 95,000,000 Task

BASE YEAR - PWD MAINE MACC

FFP

This line is the maximium not to exceed amount for the term of the contract.

Amounts not used in base period will be carried over the following Option Year.

SEED PROJECT to be priced during Phase II. A separate pricing schedule will be issued via Amendment during Phase II.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM. The Government guarantees an award amount of $5,000.00 to each offeror selected for award.

This solicitation contains four (4) Options that may be exercised providing the overall amount to exceed has not been exhausted.

FOB: Destination

MAX

NET AMT

CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE

The minimum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for the given Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table.

CLIN

MINIMUM

QUANTITY

MINIMUM

AMOUNT

MAXIMUM

QUANTITY

MAXIMUM

AMOUNT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 N/A N/A N/A Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL INFORMATION

PROPOSAL FORMAT

SEE PROPOSAL FORMAT IN THE BASIS OF AWARD/EVALUATION FACTORS IN SECTION

00100.

1. SUMMARY The following paragraphs are supplemental instructions to bidders to be used in conjunction with the Instruction to Bidders, Section 00100.

2. PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT The point of contact for this project is Kim Kaiser at 207-438-4617.

Please forward any questions regarding this project in writing to. SECONDARY POINT OF CONTRACT:

Kathleen M. Barry, telephone 207 438-4620 email kathleen.barry@navy.mil

3.CHANGES TO SOLICITATION

All documents (Amendments) associated with this Request For Proposal (RFP) will be posted to the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website at WWW.NECO.NAVY.MIL. Potential offerors will not be contacted regarding any changes posted.

4. EXPLANATION TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS: Offerors may request an explanation or interpretation of the RFP, drawings, specification etc. via E-mail to the Contract Specialist for this RFP using the following address: kim.c.kaiser@navy.mil

ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (RFI) must be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the proposal due date. No RFI’S will be accepted after 2:00 pm on the deadline. Include the solicitation number and contract title in the subject line of the E-mail and the Company's full name and address within the body of the message and submit in word format.

5. MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:

a. The contractor shall procure and maintain during the entire period of performance under this contract the following minimum insurance coverage:

1 Comprehensive General Liability: $500,000 per occurrence.

2 Automobile Liability: $200,000 per person, $500,000 per occurrence, $20,000 per occurrence for property damage.

3 Workmen’s Compensation: As required by Federal and State workers’ compensation and occupational disease laws.

4 Employer’s Liability Coverage: $100,000 except in states where workers compensation may not be written by private carriers.

5 Others as required by State of Maine.

b. Prior to commencement of work, the contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer a certificate or written statement of the above required insurance. The policies evidencing required insurance shall contain an endorsement to the effect that cancellation or any material change in the policies adversely affecting the interests of the Government in such insurance shall not be effective for such period as may be prescribed by laws of the state in which this contract is to be performed, and in no event less than thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the Contracting Officer.

c. The Contractor agrees to insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts hereunder.

Cancellation Language. The cancellation language must state, "Any cancellation or any change in the limits of liability shall not be effective (1) for such period as the laws of the state in which this contract is to be performed prescribe or (2) until 30 days after the insurer gives written notice to the Contracting Officer, whichever period is longer.” Wording such as "will endeavor to mail notice" or " failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability" does not comply with the contract requirements and therefore are not acceptable.

6. DELIVERY OF PROPOSAL

"Instructions to Bidders" and Standard Form 1442, "Solicitations, Offer and Award" shall be observed in the preparation of bids. Bidders shall affix their names and return addresses in the upper left corner of the bid envelope. Envelopes containing bids must be sealed. The outermost envelope or wrapper of all bid packages should clearly identify the solicitation number and the date and time of bid opening.

All hand delivered bids must be deposited in the bid/proposal box of :

NAVFAC MID-ATLANTIC

PWD MAINE– FEAD PORTSMOUTH

BUILDING 59, PORTSMOUTH NAVAL

SHIPYARD PORTSMOUTH, NH 03801-2032

The bid box is located in the PWD MAINE-FEAD PORTSMOUTH, ACQUISITION BRANCH OFFICE on the first floor of the building and is clearly marked “Bid/Proposal Box”. Access to the “Bid/Proposal Box” is only on working days between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. The term “working days” excludes weekends and Federal holidays. Hand-carried bids must be deposited by a representative of the offeror in the “bid box” at the above address prior to the time and date set for proposal receipt. Any hand carried proposals submitted after the time and date set for receipt will not be accepted.

Proposals tendered by a commercial carrier (e.g., Federal Express, United Parcel Service, Purolator Courier, etc.) are considered hand-carried proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring these proposals are deposited directly in the proposal box, by whomever delivers that proposal on the Offeror's behalf, prior to the proposal receipt time. The government will not deposit hand-carried proposals in the bid box nor acknowledge receipt of such from commercial carriers or the bidder/proposer itself. A offeror’s failure to timely deposit its hand-carried proposal in the bid/proposal box shall render the proposal late. NOTE: Some Commercial Carriers use a Kittery, Maine (ME) address for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Be sure to check with your specific carrier regarding proper address and delivery of packages to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

If commercial carriers are used, the offeror is responsible for ensuring carrier personnel are given correct proposal deposit instructions.

Mailed proposals shall be sent to the address identified in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1442, "Solicitation, Offer and Award".

NOTE: PRINT AND PASTE THE LABEL PROVIDED AT THE END OF THIS SECTION

ENTITLED "BID/PROPOSAL ENCLOSED", ON THE OUTERMOST ENVELOPE IN

WHICH YOUR BID/PROPOSAL IS DELIVERED AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED

INFORMATION (I.E., SOLICITATION NUMBER AND DATE AND TIME OF BID

OPENING/PROPOSAL DUE DATE.

SOLICITATION NUMBER: N40085-14-R-0004

DATE: TIME:

7. LOCATION AND ACCESS INFORMATION

(a) VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD, KITTERY ME: Driver must have a current registration, proof of current insurance and valid driver’s license. PARK OUTSIDE GATE 1 PASS OFFICE (This will be closer than trying to find open parking on the Shipyard.

(b) TEMPORARY PERSONAL VISITOR ACCESS TO THE PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD, KITTERY, ME: Person must have identification, i.e. birth certificate and proof of US Citizenship.

(c) No camera/pictures allowed on the base proper without authorization.

(d) DIRECTIONS TO THE PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD, are as follows:

Directions from I95 North to Exit 2 in Maine (Kittery): At end of ramp, bear left under overpass into Kittery traffic circle. Take second right off circle (after 7/11 Convenience Store). Go approximately ½-1 mile and take left at first set of lights near railroad tracks.. Go straight through next set of lights to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Gate 1. Receive badge from Pass Office and walk over bridge onto Shipyard. Building 59 is on the left hand side over the bridge.

(e) Pre-Bid Conference – See FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction) Alt 1. (site visit will be in conjunction with the issuance of the SEED Project in Phase II)

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

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

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

3. The 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. As stated in the solicitation, all non-cost/price evaluation factors 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. 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. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor and subfactor other than past performance. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating.

Use lower case letter ratings for technical subfactors. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good (G)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (A)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M)

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-cost/price factor.

a. Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

c. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. 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 past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

2. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired thorough the source selection. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

"The ability to complete both Design Build and Design Bid Build type projects for facilities renovation and construction projects meeting specified energy reduction goals and LEED certifications requirements. Relevant experience also includes, but is not limited to, completion of simultaneous projects in diverse geographic locations, projects in industrial, congested or urban areas with limited laydown areas, projects with significant phasing and coordination requirements, projects involving historic buildings or in historic districts, waterfront projects (berth, piers and dry docks) and Utility system projects.

3. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the relevancy ratings in the following table shall be used:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. 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.

5. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 5 below:

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

D. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(b), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States and the District of Columbia shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The safety evaluation has three elements: Experience Modification Rate (EMR), Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Job Restriction, or Transfer (DART), and Technical Approach to Safety.

3. The three elements of safety identified above, are not sub-factors. The evaluators should collectively consider all elements of safety when assigning an overall adjectival rating for this factor. The SSEB will need to make a qualitative determination of the rating for this factor, taking into account the risk ratings for EMR and DART and the subjective evaluation of the narrative.

4. Evaluators will not average the rating from the three years for the EMR and the DART.

5. The following should be utilized by evaluators as a general guideline to evaluate the EMR and DART rates:

Risk EMR Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than1.0 to 1.1 Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

E. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors and subfactors set forth below. This will be a 2 Phase Evaluation process in accordance with FAR 36.3. Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5 and Price will be evaluated in Phase II. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the government will consider Factors 2-5 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that technical factors are equal to each other and when combined are equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance). The combined non-cost/price factors are approximately equal to price.

Phase I Technical Factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Corporate Experience Factor 3 – Safety

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Factor 4 – Past Performance

Phase II Technical Factors:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

Price

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

(a) General Submittal Requirements Technical Binder:

Offeror shall submit one(1), marked “Original”, and three (3) copies, each in a separate three-ring binder with following characteristics:

8 ½ x 11 format 12 point font Limited to 100 pages – page count excludes cover page and tabs. PAGES THAT EXCEED

THE PAGE LIMITATION SHALL NOT BE EVALUATED.

A cover page with Contract Number, Contract Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone

Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact and their phone and email address.

(b) General Submittal Requirements Price Binder:

Offeror shall submit one (1) marked “Original,” and one (1) copy, each in a separate package with the following characteristics:

8 ½ x 11 format 12 point font A cover page with Contract Number, Contract Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact and their phone and email address.

Completed SF 1442, including Pricing Schedule from Section 00010 Proof of Central Contractor Registry (CCR) and ORCA registration

Phase- One Evaluation Factors

Factor 1, Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

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

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

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 - Experience :

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

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

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

Facility renovation and construction projects meeting specified energy reduction goals and LEED certifications requirements with a value of $2 million or greater. Offerors who demonstrate the following will be viewed more favorably in the evaluation:

a. Both design-build and design-bid-build type projects;

b. Execution of simultaneous projects in multiple locations in the greater New England area;

c. Experience in executing projects in industrial, congested or urban areas with limited laydown areas;

d. Experience with significant phasing and coordination requirements;

e. Experience involving historic buildings or in historic districts.

f. Experience with projects involving site utility and infrastructure improvements.

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

RFP.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one double-sided page (or two single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower.

Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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

(2) Design Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

Facility renovation and construction projects meeting specified energy reduction goals and LEED certifications requirements with a value of $2 million or greater. Offerors who demonstrate the following project experience will be viewed more favorably in the evaluation:

a. Both design-build and design-bid-build type projects;

b. Execution of simultaneous projects in multiple locations in the greater New England area;

c. Experience in executing projects in industrial, congested or urban areas with limited laydown areas;

d. Experience with significant phasing and coordination requirements;

e. Expand involving historic buildings or in historic districts.

f. Experience with projects involving site utility and infrastructure improvements.

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one double-sided page (or two single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

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

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

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

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may receive a higher rating than those that do not have design-build experience.

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

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing relevant features of work may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self performance.

Factor 3 Safety:

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

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

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

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

For the three (3) [2010, 2011, and 2012] previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (eSAMS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR) -OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate -Offeror Technical Approach to Safety -Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

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

Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

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

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

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

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

Factor 4, Past Performance:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CCASS or ACASS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (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 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, which will provide contact and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s points of contact, Kim Kaiser, via email at kim.c.kaiser@navy.mil or Kathleen Barry, vai e-mail at Kathleen.Barry@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date.

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 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.

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

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

RFP.

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

Phase- Two Non-Cost/Price Factors:

Factor 5 Technical Solution

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

For the overall contract, describe the A/Es involvement in the construction phase and the Construction Contractor’s involvement in the design phase. Describe how the design/build team will function as a whole and what benefits the proposed team will bring to the success of this contract. Describe how quality control will be integrated into your proposed teaming approach during the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION for the contract.

For the overall contract, describe the Offeror’s project management plan for delivering simultaneous projects within budget and time constraints, and outline management approach and staffing resources available to the offeror to support the design and construction of the contracts. Only for the purpose of project management plan narrative, the Offeror shall assume that at least two relevant design-build projects located at different sites within the PWD Maine Area of Responsibility are awarded to the Offeror at the same time and that the projects have the same project schedule.

For the seed project, provide a description of the technical solutions as they relate to the project requirements that demonstrate full understanding of the scope of the construction required for this project.

The narrative shall include but not be limited to:

- A draft schedule of events including relevant milestones

- A description of the proposed construction sequence and phasing.

Note: If the draft schedule or sequencing/phasing do not comply with the solicitation requirements, they will be deemed unacceptable and will impact the rating for this factor and potentially the offeror’s overall rating.

The narrative shall not exceed six double-sided pages (or 12 single-sided pages). Up to three conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e. floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

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

PRICE

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Price shall be submitted on the Price Schedule included in the solicitation. Offeror shall submit one marked “Original”, and one copy each in a separate package with the following characteristics:

8- ½ x 11 format 12 point font A cover page with Contract Number, Contract Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone

Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact and their phone and email address.

Completed SF 1442, including the Pricing Schedule Proof of Central Contractor registry (CCR) and ORCA registration

(b) 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 Solicitation Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders. 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:

(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.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2004 52.222-24 Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation FEB 1999 52.236-28 Preparation of Proposals--Construction OCT 1997

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.211-14 NOTICE OF PRIORITY RATING FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, AND ENERGY PROGRAM USE (APR 2008)

Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be a DO-C2 rated order certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy program use under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) (15 CFR 700), and the Contractor will be required to follow all of the requirements of this regulation.

(End of provision)

52.215-20 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA OR INFORMATION OTHER

THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (OCT 2010)—ALTERNATE IV (OCT 2010)

(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.

(b) Provide data described below: Access to records necessary to permit adequate evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.403-3

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a firm fixed price indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract resulting from this solicitation.

52.216-27 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS. (OCT 1995)

The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation.

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS…