RFP_0644.pdf

ACQR5489062

SOLICITATION N40085-19-R-0644, DESIGN BUILD P 199 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR and /DESIGN BID BUILD P235 UTILITY

MODERNIZATION, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA

PROPOSALS ARE DUE ON JUNE 18, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (EST).

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPI) CUT OFF DATE IS MAY 29, 2019.. ALL PPIs shall be submitted on the provided template and emailed to Elizabeth.carmack@navy.mil.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION : $100,000,000 to $250,000,000.

NAICS CODE: 236220- COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND THE SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD IS $36,500,000.

WAGE DETERMINATION : Tw o Wage Determinations as follow s: BUILDING GENERAL DECISION NC190065 dtd 1/4/19 and HEAVY GENERAL DECISION NC190069 dtd 1/4/19

BETSY CARMACK (757) 341-1654

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

08-May-2019

(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 ________934 calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

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 __________6 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 of fers 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

ACQUISITION CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

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:

N4008518R0644 50

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 specified 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

N4008518R0644

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

4.4 NAVY ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ONLINE (NECO)

5. INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

6. ATTACHMENTS:

5.1 ATTACHMENT A - PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY LOG

5.2 ATTACHMENT B - SECNAV 5512 – BASE ACCESS FORM (Naval Station Norfolk)

5.3 ATTACHMENT C - CONSTRUCTION DESIGN EXPERIENCE AND PROJECT

DATA SHEET

5.4 ATTACHMENT D - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

5.5 ATTACHMENT E – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING RECORD

5.6 ATTACHMENT F – SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT STRATEGY

5.7 ATTACHMENT G – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN TEMPLATE

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.1.1 This solicitation is being issued as Unrestricted Full and Open Competition.

1.1.2 The NAICS code for this procurement is 236220 and the size standard is $36.5 M

1.1.3 This acquisition will be advertised utilizing FAR Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiations and 36.3, Two Phase Design Build procedures- resulting in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for construction services.

1.1.4 Magnitude of Construction: Between $100,000,000 - $250,000,000

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

Description of Work:

1.2.1 Project P199 will provide a two-story low rise two squadron module Type I

Aircraft Maintenance Hangar for the F-35B aircraft and a Paraloft Facility. For the two buildings, design, construction, commissioning, requisite demolition, and site work will be required. P235 will upgrade, renovate and modernize base utilities to serve the future airfield facility provided under P199. Utility work includes fire protection lines, water storage tanks, potable water lines, communication lines, fuel distribution, and steam distribution. P235 will also provide one building to include a fire pump building. For this building, provide construction, requisite demolition and site work.

1.2.2 – Contractor Performance Information: Contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the respective contractor performance evaluation report entry system located on the website http:www.cpars.gov/. Prior to commencement of work, the contractor is required to provide the government with the name, phone number and email address of the “Contractor’s Representative” that will be responsible for receipt and review of draft performance evalutions prepared by the government in the appropriate system. It is the contractor’s responsibity to keep this contract information current.

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1. 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.

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

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

2.4. The solicitation for this two-phase design-build procurement, Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5-7 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 unless corrected through discussions. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the Government will consider Factors 2-7 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, 6, and

7) are equal to each other and, when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3). All technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2.5. 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.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

PHASE I

Factor 1 – Technical Approach (P199 only) Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

PHASE II

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy Design Reduction Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization

The distinction between Experience and Past Performance is that 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. As stated herein, the solicitation for this two-phase design-build procurement, Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5-7 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 unless corrected through discussions. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the Government will consider Factors 2-7 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are equal to each other and, when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3). All technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

After evaluating Phase I proposals, a maximum of three offerors will be selected to submit Phase II proposals unless the Government determines that a number greater than three is in the Government’s best interest.

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

a. Price: (PHASE II)

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Price binder: Price shall be submitted on the Price Proposal Form included in the solicitation. The offeror shall submit one (1) original, marked “Original”, and one

(1) copy, marked “Copy”, and one CD each in a separate three ring binder with the following:

• Cover page with solicitation number, solicitation title, offeror name, address, phone number, fax number, DUNS, CAGE code, Point of Contact (POC), POC phone number, and POC email address;

• Completed SF 1442 signed with all amendments acknowledged;

• Price Proposal Form;

• Copy of Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in

System for Award Management (SAM);

• Confirmation of filing of Veterans’ Employment and Training (VETS)

VETS-4212 for the 2017 filing cycle;

• Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

Amount shall be at least 20 percent of the proposed price, but shall not exceed $3 million; and

• Responsibility Determination Information (see below).

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan

In the event of a discrepancy between the original and copies, the original version of the proposal will govern. Also, price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, non-price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered.

The offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line items numbers (CLINs).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PRICE

PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

RESPONSIBILTY DETERMINATION INFORMATION – In order to be eligible for award, the offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with

FAR Part 9, specifically FAR 9.104-1, General Standards. In a separate tab, the offeror shall provide the following information in the price proposal package:

1. One (1) signed bank reference demonstrating adequate financial resources. If offeror’s firm has a line of credit – provide information on how many figures offeror can borrow against the line of credit (i.e. medium 6 figures – exact line of credit is not required).

2. The offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or signed by an authorized officer of the organization. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements, submit the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each company in the Joint Venture and discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies. The Government may also utilize Dun & Bradstreet reports to evaluate the financial capacity of the offeror.

3. Description of offeror’s facilities and equipment.

4. Other offeror’s work presently under contract.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (reference FAR 52.219-9 Alt II and DFARS 252.219-7003).

NAVFAC's command-wide small business subcontracting targets are shown below. These may be higher or lower than percentages that would represent realistic, challenging small business subcontracting goals for this acquisition.

Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall establish small business subcontracting plan goals and shall document in their subcontracting plans the basis for all proposed goals. Plans shall be submitted with initial offers.

SB 45%

SDB 5%

HUBZone SB 3%

WOSB 15%

SDVOSB 5%

Small businesses identified by name shall be listed in small business subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 in order to facilitate compliance with 252.219-7003(e).

See the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template (Attachment G) for format.

Although required to be submitted with offeror’s price proposal, this information will not be evaluated as part of the price proposal. This information forms the basis of your firm’s responsibility determination should your firm be considered for award. Proposal packages from unsuccessful offerors will not be returned to the offeror, but shall be destroyed by the Contracting Officer. No certificate of destruction will be issued.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price.

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.

b. Non-price Factors:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Non-price binder: The offeror shall submit one (1) original, marked “Original”, one (1) CD, and six (6) copies, marked “Copy”, each in a separate three ring binder with the following:

• Cover page with Solicitation Number, Solicitation Title, Prime Contractor

Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, CAGE Code, Point of Contact, Phone Number, and Email Address;

• 8 ½ x 11 paper, 12-point font;

• Refer to individual factors for page limitations. Pages that exceed indicated page limitations shall not be evaluated; and

• Additionally, include an electronic version of the price and non-price proposal on one CD-ROM.

As with the price proposal, in the event of a discrepancy between the original and copies (or CD-ROM), the original version of the proposal will govern.

Furthermore, any price information within the technical proposal (non-price proposal) will not be considered. Likewise, any technical/non-price information within the price proposal will not be considered.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The following applies to ONLY the Aircraft Hangar project, P-199.

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for the Aircraft Hangar ONLY (P-199) 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 a significant design subcontractor is being claimed in Factor 2 - Experience, the firm must be included 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, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), 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.).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. Failure to provide any of the above required information may result in the offeror being rated Unacceptable. Offerors that are rated Unacceptable in this factor will be found ineligible to proceed to Phase II unless corrected through discussions (if held).

Factor 2 – Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall demonstrate relevant experience with BOTH aircraft hangar and utility upgrade construction projects, as detailed below.

The offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Aircraft Hangar Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and up to a maximum for five (5) relevant construction projects for the offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $50,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar. Renovations will not be considered.

Complexity: Airfield improvements and/or aircraft parking apron and taxiways. (Must be demonstrated on a least one relevant (size and scope) construction project).

Note: Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered for Aircraft Hangar experience. Likewise, the offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

Utility Upgrade Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and up to a maximum of three (3) relevant construction projects that best demonstrates your experience on utility upgrade projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $25,000,000 or greater.

Scope: Experience in coordinating installation of new and existing multiple complex utilities such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical, telecommunications, natural gas, and steam, along with roadway with associated civil items and buildings.

Greater consideration may be given to offerors demonstrating experience in a wider range of utilities.

Complexity: Each project submitted does not require demonstrated experience with all of the following components, but collectively, relevant projects must demonstrate experience with all elements.

• Experience with sequenced construction.

• Modification or construction of site utility distribution systems; specifically showing utility outages and traffic coordination.

• Projects completed in congested and/or industrial areas that resulted in limited construction laydown space, multiple construction laydown areas, and/or just-in-time delivery methods. The project description must clearly describe the conditions that caused the aforementioned circumstances, and how it was effectively mitigated.

Note: The offeror may utilize experience of its work as a subcontractor or work of a proposed subcontractor to demonstrate Utility Upgrade Experience only. The offeror shall provide a letter of commitment, signed by both parties, and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in the performance of this contract and for the duration of the contract.

The following applies to BOTH the aircraft hangar and utility upgrade projects.

Projects submitted shall have been completed within ten (10) years prior to the date of issuance of the 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 shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Design/ Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) 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 or the Government reserves the right not to consider the project.

Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium.

Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). Information beyond this page limit will not be considered.

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) or the project may be deemed not relevant.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. 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 eight (8) projects combined. For a JV, the offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, the offeror shall submit the signed and U.S.

Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

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. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered.

(2) Design Experience:

SUBMIT FOR P-199 AIRCRAFT HANGAR DESIGN EXPERIENCE ONLY (UTILITY

UPGRADE IS A DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECT; THEREFORE, DESIGN EXPERIENCE

WILL NOT BE EVALUATED FOR P-235, FLIGHTLINE UTILITY MODERNIZATION).

Aircraft Hangar experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and up to a maximum for five (5) relevant design projects for the offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $50,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar. Renovations will not be considered.

Complexity: Airfield improvements and/or aircraft parking apron and taxiways. (Must be demonstrated on a least one relevant (size and scope) design project).

Projects submitted must have been completed within the past ten (10) 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 ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Submissions that do not meet the above requirements or provide sufficient information for the Government to determine that the project meets the above requirements will be deemed not relevant.

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 shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate Construction and Design Experience, the Offeror MUST submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Failure to do so may result in the project not being considered for construction or design experience if a form is not specifically submitted.

Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium.

Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). Information beyond this page limit will not be considered.

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. Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether the project is new construction and provides the square footage and final construction cost, and addresses how the project meets the above size, scope, and complexity requirements. Submissions that do not meet the above requirements or do not provide sufficient information for the Government to determine that the project meets the above requirements will be deemed not relevant.

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. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered.

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 from the design firm and an explanation of the significant involvement for the design subcontractor. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered. Offerors proposing multiple design firms should submit relevant project experience for all design firms. Failure to do so may result in a lower rating. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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. Any projects submitted in excess of the requirements for Construction Experience and for Design Experience will not be considered. The Government will NOT review projects submitted in excess of the maximum as stated within the factor.

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.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with Fast-Tracked Projects may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate experience with this process. A fast-tracked project allows an early start of construction with sequenced design packages that builds upon the previous design package.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

The following applies to both the aircraft hangar and utility upgrade projects.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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 Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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 CPARS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment D) 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 shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the 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 point of contact, elizabeth.carmack@navy.mil.

Offerors are highly encouraged to provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Additionally, Offerors are highly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total. Information provided beyond this page limit will not be considered.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s 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 will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

The assessment of the Offeror’s team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Factor 4 – 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, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (2016, 2017, and 2018). This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, the Offeror must affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends must be addressed as part of the factor submission.

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

Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (2016, 2017, and 2018). If an Offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART, for any year, the Offeror must affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(c) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (2016, 2017, and 2018). If an Offeror cannot submit an OSHA TRC rates, for any year, the Offeror must affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(d) Technical Approach for Safety: The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages), and must address all items below. Information in excess of the page limitation will not be considered.

1. The offeror shall describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors.

2. The offeror shall fully describe the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work.

3. The offeror shall describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels.

4. The offeror shall describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends must be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART rates, the offeror must affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART data and negative trends must be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(c) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA TRC rates, the offeror must affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC rate data and negative trends must be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(d) Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential 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. The board 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 board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. 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.

(e) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution (PHASE II)

A. The following applies to only the aircraft hangar project (P-199).

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP.

Narratives must include, but are not limited to, the following:

- P-199 Hangar – interior circulation/ space adjacencies and square footage.

- P-199 Hangar – construction including exterior facade and AFFF.

- P-199 Hangar – special security requirements.

- P-199 Paraloft – interior circulation/ space adjacencies and square footage.

- P-199 Paraloft – construction including exterior façade.

- P-199 Site layout including a description of the building orientations, roadways, parking

(include ingress and egress), emergency vehicle access, and ATFP standoff distances.

Also include in the narrative a description of the general concept proposed to meet low impact development (LID).

Narratives shall not exceed eight (8) double-sided pages (or sixteen (16) single-sided pages).

Two (2) conceptual site drawings (site plans) (not included in the page limitation) must be provided to supplement the narrative, one for the Hangar site and one for the Paraloft site.

Information provided beyond the page limit will not be considered.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual site drawings 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.

B. Management Approach and Schedule – The following applies to both the aircraft hangar and utility upgrade construction projects.

Provide a Narrative Work Plan and a CPM Project Schedule to describe your approach to managing the subject projects to ensure adherence to schedule and construction sequencing as required in the RFP.

Narrative Work Plan The Narrative work plan shall address major elements of work and demonstrate understanding of the scope, major milestones, technical complexities, and the sequenced construction schedule needed to coordinate the Aircraft Hangar and Utilities Upgrade Projects as identified in the solicitation. Identify activities that may affect the project timeline, including other/off site work activities.

The Narrative shall not exceed five (5) double-sided (or ten (10) single-sided) 8- 1/2” x 11” pages. Information provided beyond this page limit will not be considered.

Project Schedule The Project Schedule must provide an Overall Schedule, a Summary Schedule, and a Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule.

The Overall Schedule must provide a detailed construction schedule that illustrates your ability to achieve or improve on the requirements of the RFP. It must identify the completion time for this project in accordance with the RFP, as well as interim completion times (including each sequence of work as identified in the RFP) and key milestones as required to complete the construction. The Overall Schedule should demonstrate an understanding of the work and a logical sequence of events to accomplish the scope of work as defined in the RFP.

NOTE: Your proposal must AT LEAST comply with the required contract duration indicated in this RFP. If your proposal provides a shorter duration than specified in the RFP, the proposed duration may be incorporated into the resultant contract.

The Summary Schedule should show the major elements of work and key milestones.

The CPM Schedule should document any tasks on the Critical Path.

Provide all Project Schedule source files.

The Overall Schedule must be submitted on 11" x 17" pages to document the requested information. Schedule shall not exceed 20 pages. Pages in excess of this limit will not be considered.

The Summary Schedule must be submitted on one (1) single-sided 11” x 17” page. Information provided beyond this page limit will not be considered.

The CPM Schedule must be submitted on 11" x 17" pages to document the requested information. Schedule shall not exceed 20 pages. Pages in excess of this limit will not be considered.

The Government will evaluate the specific elements below to determine the level of understanding of the requirements of the RFP.

Narrative Work Plan Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP. A narrative work plan that identifies areas of risk in logistics and resource management, and provide a comprehensive contingency plan that addresses mitigation of any identified risks with potential solutions, may be considered more favorable.

Project Schedule Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP. A Project Schedule that proposes a realistic contract duration shorter that the required duration indicated in the RFP may be considered more favorable. A project Schedule that proposes contract durations longer than the RFP will be rated as UNACCEPTABLE.

Factor 6 – Energy Design and Reduction:

The Offeror shall provide the following information which describes how the project will meet or exceed the following sustainable design contract requirements.

(1) Energy Efficiency Narrative:

Provide a detailed narrative describing how the proposed solution will meet baseline ASHRAE 90.1-2013 (or more recent version). Also describe how the solution will provide at least a 30% energy reduction below the baseline ASHRAE 90.1, based on life cycle cost effectiveness.

To determine solution, use the ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G – Building Performance Rating Method, except replace the formula in G1.2 with the following:

Percentage improvement = 100 × ((Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads) − (Proposed building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)) / (Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)

List assumptions used to obtain the percent energy reduction.

Organize narrative in four parts: 1) Orientation, Configuration, and Shape; 2) Envelope properties (fenestration, solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC), wall and roof insulation values (U-values), window U-values); 3) Mechanical (HVAC, plumbing, and domestic hot water heating systems, including any solar hot water systems); and 4) Electrical Systems (lighting and control systems, including any interior and exterior lighting systems, renewable energy and control systems).

Where 30% reduction is not lifecycle cost effective, provide highest percent energy reduction that is lifecycle cost effective.

Note: Building performance rating and percent energy reduction are calculated in terms of energy rather than energy cost.

Do not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages). Information provided beyond this page limit will not be considered.

(b) Whole Building Energy Simulation:

The Whole Building Energy Solution requires the use of the following documents included in Part 6 of this RFP:

- Government Baseline Building Performance Rating

- Government Baseline Building Energy Model (input-output) schedules (If the process and receptacle loads are not given in the schedules, assume they are 25% of the total load.)

- Default simulation factors

- Utility Costs (energy rates) for project, based on local unburdened PWD rates

- “Whole Building Energy Simulation” templates

- “Performance Rating Method Compliance Reports”

Use the “Whole Building Energy Simulation” templates to demonstrate the percentage improvement over the “Proposed Building Performance Rating”. Receptacle and process loads are included in the “Whole Building Energy Simulation” as part of the building loads. Submit the Whole Building Energy Simulation in PDF electronic file format.

(ii) Basis of Government Evaluation:

1) Energy Efficiency Narrative and Solution: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed energy efficiency narrative and solution.

2) Whole Building Energy Simulation: The Government will evaluate the Whole

Building Energy Simulation to determine the validity of the design assumptions, thoroughness and accuracy of the Whole Building Energy Simulation, and the percent improvement of energy consumption reduction below the Government’s “Baseline Building Performance Rating”.

Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization:

This factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns as subcontractors and…