N40085-14-R-1302_(with_attachments_B-H).pdf

Mini General Construction Multiple Aw ard Construction Contract (MACC) North Carolina Area

Seed Project: Work Order Number 5864856 Paint Interior, Exterior and Door Replacement Building 486 at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC (The Completion Date w ill be 120 Days After Aw ard)

Competition is restricted to Small Business. Teaming Arrangements and Joint Ventures are excluded from competition.

All proposal inquiries must be submitted no later than (NLT) 1400 12 March 2014.

REQUIRED FILL-IN INFORMATION BY CONTRACTOR

Contractor POC: DUNS: Phone #:

Alternate POC: EMAIL:

FAX: CAGE CODE:

Item 11 applies to the seed project only.

JENNIFER STEWART 252-466-6643

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

10-Feb-2014

(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 _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________120 calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is 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 __________4 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________ (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 _______180 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

ROICC CHERRY POINT

BLDG 163 CURTIS ROAD

PSC BOX 8006

CHERRY POINT NC 28533-0006

N40085

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

(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-1302 64

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-1302

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Each

MINI GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MACC

FFP

MINI GENERAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

(MACC), NORTH CAROLINA AREA

THE TOTAL VALUE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS COMBINED

FOR ALL YEARS (BASE PLUS FOUR OPTIONS) SHALL NOT EXCEED

NINETY MILLION DOLLARS ($90,000,000)

THE BASE SHALL BE 365 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONTRACT

AWARD AND THE OPTION PERIODS SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING FOUR

CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR YEARS. ALL OPTIONS SHALL BE

EXERCISED ON CLIN 0001.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1. This acquisition will result in the award of up to six (6) Design-Bid-Build, Indefinite- Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC) for the Contracting Offices for ROICC Cherry Point and OICC MCI East Camp Lejeune Area (including the New River Air Station) of Responsibility for a wide range of general construction type projects.

2. The resulting contracts will provide a wide range of general construction requirements supporting base wide facilities and infrastructure to also include other military and Government installations/sites in North Carolina.

The requirements cover a broad range of general construction services including, but not limited to, new construction, demolition, repair, total/partial interior/exterior alteration/renovation of buildings, systems and infrastructure and may include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, communication systems, installation of new or extensions to existing high voltage electrical distribution systems, extensions to the existing high pressure steam distribution systems, extensions to the potable water distribution systems, extensions to the sanitary sewer systems, additional storm water control systems, painting, removal of asbestos materials and lead paint, and incidental related work. The source selection evaluation criterion requires offerors to demonstrate experience in new construction, demolition, repair, total/partial interior/exterior alteration/renovation of buildings, systems and infrastructure.

Historically the types of buildings and facilities supported include administrative, industrial, warehouses, maintenance, communications, schools/training/education, personnel support, recreational, food services, training areas/ranges, roads, etc. All work under this contract will be performed at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (including the New River Air Station), Marine Corps Installations East, and other military and government installations/sites under the Marine Corps Installation East Area of Responsibility.

The seed project will be Paint Interior/Exterior and Door Replacement, Building 486 at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC. The work includes removal of all wallpaper, repair/ patch damaged wallboard, prepare, prime and paint all previously painted interior and exterior surfaces, replace 1 double exterior door/frame, replace flooring and incidental work.

3. The description of the basic contract award CLIN, as well as the option periods, is as follows:

CLIN 0001 - Base Period and Four Option Years, Not to Exceed $90,000,000 for the total period of performance, for all combined contracts awarded under the solicitation.

4. The period of performance for each MACC will be a base year and four (4) contract option periods of a year each, for a maximum performance period of 60 months, or an aggregate maximum value of $90,000,000 for all combined contracts, whichever comes first.

5. The minimum guarantee for this contract is $5,000 per contract, over the full term of the contract, to include option years. For the total performance period (base year plus option years), the total estimated cost for all combined contracts will not exceed a total value of $90,000,000 (ninety million dollars). Task orders will be firm fixed price and will range predominately in dollar value from $2,000 to $200,000; however, the Government may elect to issue task orders of a higher or lower dollar value.

6. The Government intends to award no more than six (6) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors with the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposals based on the evaluation factors in the solicitation as outlined in the Section “Evaluation of Proposals”.

7. This acquisition will be solicited as a Small Business Set-aside pursuant to FAR 19.5 as authorized in the approved acquisition plan.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The technical proposals and price proposal shall be submitted in separate volumes. The technical proposal presented by the offeror to whom the award is made will be incorporated into the contract at time of award.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Price Proposal: Submit an original and 1 copy of the completed SF1442, acknowledgment of all amendments (sign Block 19 of SF1442 or Block 15a, b, and c of SF30), Bid Bond, Commitment of Surety, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, and Price Proposal for the seed project in three-ring binders. The evaluated price shall be the cumulative price submitted for the seed project on the Schedule B of the solicitation. The written Commitment of Surety, on authorized agent letterhead, should state the surety’s commitment to issue performance and payment bonds on multiple construction projects in a cumulative total of at least $3,000,000.00 per year. Also include a cover page indicating contract number and title, name, address, phone number, email, fax number, and point of contact of the prime contractor.

Technical Proposal: Submit an original and four (4) copies of the technical proposal (Evaluation Factors 1 through

4) in three-ring binders; specific submittal information listed below under Evaluation. Include a cover page indicating contract number and title, name, address, phone number, fax number, and point of contact of the prime contractor.

Proposal Format: Original and copies shall be provided in three-ring binders, in 8 ½ x 11 format, font size 12, limited to 50 pages for the technical proposal. Also provide one (1) electronic copy on CD ROM in Adobe Acrobat PDF format for the technical proposal. All CD ROMs shall be virus checked prior to submission.

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 contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers.

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. This is a Small Business set-aside and the offeror must be a Small Business. Therefore, due to the set-aside nature of this solicitation and to insure qualified offerors have the best opportunity to compete.

4. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the six (6) technically acceptable proposals with the lowest evaluated prices. No more than six (6) awards will be made. In order to permit efficient competition, the following methodology will be utilized.

Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Government will then evaluate the technical factors of the ten (10) lowest priced proposals in accordance with the criteria for acceptability set forth in the solicitation. However, the Government, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology. If six (6) or more of those proposals are found to be technically acceptable, the Government will make award to those six (6) offerors with the lowest price. If not, groups of three (3) proposals will continue to be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until up to six (6) offers are found to be technically acceptable. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purposed of establishing a competitive range. At no time during the technical evaluation will the SSEB be made aware of the offerors’ pricing, nor their particular price ranking.

5. 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. If an offeror receives an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any non-price factor, no additional proposal evaluation will be performed. Accordingly, under this methodology, some of the technical factors of some of the evaluated proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), 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, as listed 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

C. 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 Ratings

Rating Description

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

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not clearly 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.

2. 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 Ratings

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 has no 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” 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, recency is defined as projects completed within the past three (3) years. Relevant past performance includes general construction projects, where the contractor served as the prime contractor or performed multiple trades as a subcontractor under a particular project. It includes performing a diverse range of construction tasks as defined under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, for requirements similar to those included in the subject solicitation.

(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.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

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

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

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit pricing for the seed project, CLIN 0001

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price proposal submitted for the seed project.

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.

(b) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit five (5) general construction projects, completed within the last three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals, which demonstrate relevant experience in a diverse range such as new construction, demolition, repair and interior/exterior alterations/renovation of building, systems and infrastructure in the price range of $50,000 or greater, completed within the past three

(3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction is defined as at least two (2) different types of construction tasks (i.e. repair of infrastructure, alterations of a building, demolition, new construction, etc).

Each project shall be in the range of $30,000.00 or greater. Provide projects of the same size and scope of the proposed task orders.

For each project, your proposal shall provide the following minimum information using the Corporate Experience format provided under Attachment E:

Contract Number/Project Title/Location:

Original Contract Amount:

Final Contract Amount:

Award Date:

Contract completion date:

Contractor Performed as Prime Contractor or Subcontractor Project Description: (describe salient features of the work) % of Work Performed by Offeror

Type of Construction Task(s), i.e. new construction, demolition, renovation, etc Construction Trades Performed by Offeror

Customer POC; Organization; Tel #; Fax #; and Email.

Notes:

(1) Failure to provide all the above information for each project will result in an unacceptable rating for this Factor.

(2) It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure points of contact, telephone numbers and email addresses are accurate.

Demonstrate experience managing several construction projects simultaneously through submission of the five (5) required projects above.

Demonstrate experience performing as a prime contractor through submission of the five (5) required projects above

The Government will not evaluate projects performed by parent, affiliate, subsidiary, sister or any other company with a similar relationship to the offeror.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

An acceptable proposal shall demonstrate the following through the five (5) submitted projects:

• relevant experience in a diverse range of construction trades, such as new construction, demolition, repair and interior/exterior alterations/renovation of building, systems and infrastructure in the price range of $50,000 or greater, completed within the past three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction is defined as at least two (2) different types of construction tasks (i.e. repair of infrastructure, alterations of a building, demolition, new construction, etc).

systems and infrastructure in the price range of $50,000 or greater, completed within the past three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction

• experience working simultaneously on several projects.

• experience performing as a prime contractor.

If less than five (5) relevant projects are submitted, or all of the requirements above are not demonstrated, the offeror will receive an “unacceptable” rating.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

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

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years, 2010, 2011 and 2012, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If an entity has 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.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three previous complete calendar years, 2010, 2011 and 2012, 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 an entity 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.

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any and 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 Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, 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.

(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.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement.

(c) Past Performance

(1) Factor 3, Past Performance:

If a completed CPARS evaluation is available for the project(s) listed under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, 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 1, Corporate Experience.

AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS

AVAILABLE.

If a CPARS evaluation is not available, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. 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 roicc_chpt_ktr_bids@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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of acommendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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), 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.

Note: The assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

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

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

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

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers.

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. This is a Small Business set-aside and the offeror must be a Small Business. Therefore, due to the set-aside nature of this solicitation and to ensure qualified offerors have the best opportunity to compete.

4. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the six (6) technically acceptable proposals with the lowest evaluated prices. No more than six (6) awards will be made. In order to permit efficient competition, the following methodology will be utilized.

Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Government will then evaluate the technical factors of the ten (10) lowest priced proposals in accordance with the criteria for acceptability set forth in the solicitation. However, the Government, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology. If six (6) or more of those proposals are found to be technically acceptable, the Government will make award to those six (6) offerors with the lowest price. If not, groups of two (2) proposals will continue to be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until up to six (6) offers are found to be technically acceptable. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purposed of establishing a competitive range. At no time during the technical evaluation will the SSEB be made aware of the offerors’ pricing, nor their particular price ranking.

5. 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. If an offeror receives an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any non-price factor, no additional proposal evaluation will be performed. Accordingly, under this methodology, some of the technical factors of some of the evaluated proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), 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, as listed 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

C. 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 Ratings

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

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not clearly 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.

2. 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 Ratings

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 has no 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” 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, recency is defined as projects completed within the past three (3) years. Relevant past performance includes general construction projects, where the contractor served as the prime contractor or performed multiple trades as a subcontractor under a particular project. It includes performing a diverse range of construction tasks as defined under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, for requirements similar to those included in the subject solicitation.

(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.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

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

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

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

(a) Price:

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit pricing for the seed project, CLIN 0001

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price proposal submitted for the seed project.

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.

(b) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(iii) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit two (2) general construction projects, completed within the last three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals, which demonstrate relevant experience in a diverse range such as new construction, demolition, repair and interior/exterior alterations/renovation of building, systems and infrastructure in the price range of $30,000 or greater, completed within the past three

(3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction is defined as at least two (2) different types of construction tasks (i.e. repair of infrastructure, alterations of a building, demolition, new construction, etc).

Each project shall be in the range of $30,000.00 or greater. Provide projects of the same size and scope of the proposed task orders.

For each project, your proposal shall provide the following minimum information using the Corporate Experience format provided under Attachment E:

Contract Number/Project Title/Location:

Original Contract Amount:

Final Contract Amount:

Award Date:

Contract completion date:

Contractor Performed as Prime Contractor or Subcontractor Project Description: (describe salient features of the work) % of Work Performed by Offeror

Type of Construction Task(s), i.e. new construction, demolition, renovation, etc Construction Trades Performed by Offeror

Customer POC; Organization; Tel #; Fax #; and Email.

Notes:

(1) Failure to provide all the above information for each project will result in an unacceptable rating for this Factor.

(2) It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure points of contact, telephone numbers and email addresses are accurate.

Demonstrate experience managing several construction projects simultaneously through submission of the two (2) required projects above.

Demonstrate experience performing as a prime contractor through submission of the two (2) required projects above

The Government will not evaluate projects performed by parent, affiliate, subsidiary, sister or any other company with a similar relationship to the offeror.

(iv) Basis of Evaluation:

An acceptable proposal shall demonstrate the following through the two (2) submitted projects:

systems and infrastructure in the price range of $30,000 or greater, completed within the past three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction systems and infrastructure in the price range of $30,000 or greater, completed within the past three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposals. A diverse range of construction

• experience working simultaneously on several projects.

• experience performing as a prime contractor.

If less than two (2) relevant projects are submitted, or all of the requirements above are not demonstrated, the offeror will receive an “unacceptable” rating.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

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

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years, 2011, 2012 and 2013, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If an entity has 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.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three previous complete calendar years, 2011, 2012 and 2013, 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 an entity 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.

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any and 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 Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, 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.

(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.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project.