18R3009_TOLEDO_RFP-.pdf

ACQR5164365

N4008518R3009 - ATFP SECURITY UPGRADES, NOSC TOLEDO ATFP

This is a Design-Build Project.

This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside proecurement. NAICS code is 236220 w ith a Small Business Size Standard of $36.5m.

This procurement includes CLIN 0001 w hich provides for the enhancement of the force protection and physcial security capabilities at Navy Reserve/Marine Corps Training Center, Toledo, OH

PATRICIA B. BORJA 847-688-5395 X247

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

28-Feb-2018

(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 _______1 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________365 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 specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________30 Mar 2018 (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 is, X is not required.

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

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

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC PWD GREAT LAKES

PWD GREAT LAKES FEAD

310 SEABEE WAY

GREAT LAKES IL 60088-2814

N40085

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

01:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

N4008518R3009 90

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

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

NOSC TOLEDO SECURITY UPGRADES

TOLEDO, OH

CLIN 0001: The contractor shall provide design, all labor, materials, equipment, coordination, transportation and on-site supervision necessary to enhance force protection and physical security capabilities at Navy Reserve/Marine Corps Training Center Toledo, OH in accordance with UFC 4-020-01 Security Engineering for Asset Category “A” People (general population). The primary scope work identified herein will include practical upgrades to existing Physical Security Equipment (PSE), Electronic Security Systems (ESS), infrastructure, and facilities in conformance with UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.

The enhancements identified in this RFP are the recommended Physical Security Equipment (PSE) and Electronic Security Systems (ESS) mitigation actions to reduce the risk associated with Asset Category “A” People (general population) at Reserve Training Center Toledo, OH

Reserve Training Center Toledo, OH is a joint facility shared by both Navy and Marine Corps building occupants.

1. POINT OF CONTACT

Ms. Patti Borja, Contract Specialist Phone: (847) 688-5395 extension 247 Email: patti.borja@navy.mill

2. STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

All work shall be accomplished in accordance with the attached plans and specifications and this Request for Proposal (RFP).

3. NAICS and Size Standard:

NAICS code for this solicitation is 236220 with a Small Business Size Standard of $36.5m.

4. SET ASIDE

This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside procurement.

5. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE/SITE VISIT

A site visit will be held:

DATE: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 TIME: 2:00pm ET PLACE: 28828 Glenwood Road Perrysburg, OH 43551

Site Visit Questions shall be directed to the above mentioned Point of Contact (patti.borja@navy.mil).

Offerors should be properly attired for conducting a site visit with appropriate safety gear for inspecting proposed areas. Due to security restrictions, photographs of work areas affected by this RFP will need prior approval and no work stations or Government personnel are to be photographed at any time.

6. SOLICITATION PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs): Inquiries and questions on this Request for Proposal shall be submitted in writing electronically to the Contract Specialist using the Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) form provided as Attachment 1 of the this solicitation. Please ensure that the PPI form is returned as an Excel spreadsheet, not as a .pdf. The Point of Contact (POC) for inquiries is Patti Borja at patti.borja@navy.mil AND Ken Seymour at Kenneth.d.seymour@navy.mil. All PPIs must be received no later than 10:00am CT, Tuesday, March 20, 2018. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify that PPIs were received by the Government.

7. PROPOSAL DUE DATE & SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Technical and Price Proposals are due no later than Friday, March 30, 2018 NLT 1:00PM CT.

Electronic submission of proposals will NOT be accepted. Offerors shall provide one (01) original and four (04) copies of their Technical Proposal.

Offerors shall provide one (01) original and two (02) copies of their Price Proposal. Technical and Price Proposals shall be submitted in separate binders in accordance with Submittal Requirements. Hard-copies as required by this RFP should be mailed to:

NAVFAC MidLant – PWD Great Lakes

ATTN Ms. Patti Borja, Contract Specialist 310 Seabee Way, Building 1H

Great Lakes, IL 60088-2814

Hand-delivered proposals should be brought directly to 310 Seabee Way, Building 1H, Naval Station Great Lakes, IL (base access is required for delivery of proposals).

8. Price Proposals MUST include Attachment C on company letterhead with your

DUNS number, CAGE Code, Tax ID, Names, titles, phone number (s) and email address(es) of persons authorized to negotiate with the Government on the Offeror’s behalf. Attachment C shall indicate your proposal expiration date.

9. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: All work shall be completed and ready for use no later than 365 calendar days after the date of award (this includes time for processing of base passes, pre-construction submittals, permits, hazmat surveys, construction work, and closeout).

In accordance with FAR 52.211-12, Liquidated Damages (LDs) in the amount of $650.00 will be assessed for every calendar day of delay until work is completed or accepted.

10. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DoL) WAGE DETERMATION(S):

In accordance with FAR 22.407(a), FAR clause 52.222-6 (Construction Wage Rate Requirements), Department of Labor General Decision Number OH180109 02/02/2018 OH109 applies to this award. If this wage determination is updated by the Department of Labor (DoL) prior to award of this contract, the most current wage determinations will be incorporated into the award.

11. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM)

Offerors must be registered in the database IAW FAR 52.204-7 in order to be awarded a contract. Offerors must also be registered with NAICS 236220.

12. VETS 4212 REGISTRATION

Offerors must provide proof of VETS 4212 (formerly VETS 100) registration with you PRICE PROPOSAL.

13. ESTIMATED COST RANGE: The estimated value of this project in its entirety is between $1,300,000.00 and $2,000,000.00.

14. ELECTRONIC INVOICING: The Department of Defense (DoD) Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance, and Property Transfer (iRAPT), [formerly Wide Area Workflow (WAWF)] system shall be used for the submission of invoices In Accordance With DFARS CLAUSE 252.232-7006.

15. BONDING: A bid guarantee is not required with proposals. Performance and Payment bonds equal to 100% of the awarded dollar value are required after award In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 52.228-15. Also, IAW 52.225-5 Insurance Work on a Government Installation, insurance coverage is required within 15 days after award.

16. SOLICITATION: This solicitation incorporates the Statement of Work (SOW).

The contractor will be required to meet the specification in the SOW as they are set forth.

17. PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Proposal Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the proposal requirements and evaluation factors in the RFP and will be based on the best value to the Government using the Best Value Trade Off Selection Approach.

18. OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT AN AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT

DISCUSSIONS OR ANY CONTACT CONCERNING THE PROPOSALS

RECEIVED. Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable price and technical terms. Offerors should not assume that they would be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of proposals or conduct discussions, providing an opportunity for the offeror to revise their proposal.

19. INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: The Contractor’s technical proposal, including revisions and amendments made prior to contract award and a copy of which is in possession of both parties, will be incorporated into this contract upon award by reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full text. For the duration of this contract, the Contractor shall provide labor, supervision, tools, material, transportation and equipment as described in the technical proposal and this contract. Further, the Contractor shall provide the management staff, organization, supervision and personnel stated in the technical proposal to accomplish the work under this contract. All Contractor personnel shall meet or exceed the qualification standards, experience levels and trade background set forth in the technical proposal.

In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this contract and the technical proposal, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (i) the contract (excluding the technical proposal), and then

(ii) the technical proposal.

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposal Format. In response to this request for proposal, the complete proposal, technical and price, shall be formatted per RFP requirements and mailed or hand-delivered to Patti Borja at

NAVFAC MIDLANT – PWD GREAT LAKES

ATTN: Ms. Patti Borja, Contract Specialist 310 Seabee Way, Building 1H Great Lakes, IL 60088-2814

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

FACTOR 1 – Technical Approach FACTOR 2 – Experience FACTOR 3 – Past Performance FACTOR 4 – Safety FACTOR 5 – Technical Solution

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that is comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factor 1: Technical Approach; Factor 2: Experience; Factor 4: Safety; and Factor 5: Technical Solution) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor 3 (Past Performance). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

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

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements The Offeror shall submit a bound original and two (02) bound copies of the Price Proposal. The Price Proposals should be clearly marked “VOLUME I, PRICE PROPOSALS” and submitted separately from the Technical Proposal in a sealed envelope/box clearly marked “PRICE PROPOSAL – DO NOT OPEN IN MAILROOM”. Volume I Price Proposal shall be tabbed as listed below:

Tab 1 Executed Solicitation, Offer and Award Forms (SF 1442), including any supplemental pages.

Tab 2. Signed acknowledgement of any amendments (SF30).

Tab 3. Completed attachment C – Representations and Certifications Cover Sheet.

Tab 4. Representations and Certifications printed from System for Award Management (SAM).

Tab 5. Bank/Credit References: Submit at least one bank and one credit reference.

Provide name of institution, point of contact, email address, phone number and account number for each reference (Use Responsibility Evaluation Form, provided as attachment D). Provide a signed statement of release giving the reference permission to release the information to the Navy.

Tab 6. Proof of registration of VETS 4212 (formerly VETS 100) registration.

Tab 7. Contractor’s Self-Performance Certification & Notification of Subcontracting (attachment E)

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the

RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements

The Offeror shall submit one (01) bound original and four (04) bound copies of the Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposals should be clearly marked “VOLUME II, TECHNICAL PROPOSALS”, tabbed appropriately, and submitted separately from the price proposal in a sealed envelope/box clearly marked: “TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – DO NOT OPEN IN MAILROOM”. Technical proposals shall be submitted in 8 ½ x 11 format; font size no smaller than 12 Times New Roman, limited to 72 single-sided pages, inclusive of all charts, resumes, forms, and other documentation responsive to the solicitation requirements.

Price proposals are NOT part of the 72 page limitation. Pages exceeding the 72 single-sided page maximum page limitation shall not be considered during evaluation of the proposal.

Volume II Technical Proposals shall include submittals for each technical factor and shall be tabbed as specified below:

(1) Factor 1: Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6).

The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

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

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, 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 to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

(2) Factor 2: Experience

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a maximum of five (5) relevant construction security projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, projects related specific to geographic locations per the RFP and complexity to the RFP. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) relevant projects and a maximum of five (5) total relevant projects. Additionally, of those projects submitted, a minimum of three (03) must be renovation projects. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as projects related to but not limited to Antiterrorism Force Protection Projects and or Security projects. The projects shall outline the following:

1. K-4 security rated gate installations within the northern climates.

2. Installation of K-4 security rated cabling for new fencing and existing fencing.

3. CCTV installations with one or more workstations installed new and in conjuncture with existing systems.

4. CAC installed applications compatible with Navy, Army, Army National

Guard and Marine installations.

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

A project is defined as a construction project and or renovation 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 Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, projects related specific to geographic locations per the RFP and complexity to the RFP. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) relevant projects and a maximum of five (5) total relevant projects. Additionally, of those projects submitted, a minimum of three (03) must be renovation projects. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as projects related to but not limited to Antiterrorism Force Protection Projects and or Security projects. The projects shall outline the following:

1. K-4 security rated gate installations within the northern climates.

2. Installation of K-4 security rated cabling for new fencing and existing fencing.

3. CCTV installations with one or more workstations installed new and in conjuncture with existing systems.

4. CAC installed applications compatible with Navy, Army, Army National

Guard and Marine installations.

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

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole 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 B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

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

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. 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. The Government will only review five projects for construction and five for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE

SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED

CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2. 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 Government's point of contact, Patti Borja, via email at patti.borja@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.

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/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment A.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation

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 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.); and

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

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.

(4) Factor 4: Safety

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: 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.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. 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, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA, DART, and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: 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. The offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor will 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 technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two pages.

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) 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 should 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.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) Factor 5: Technical Solution

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

- Type of K-4 Rated Gate that will be used.

- Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), and ATFP (Antiterrorism Force Protection) recommendations.

- Floor plan including a description of the ATFP requirements as outlined in the RFP.

- General description of what will be provided per ATFP requirements as outlined in the RFP.

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages (or six (6) single-sided pages). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation

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

ATTACHMENT 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY FORM

(SEPARATE ATTACHMENT)

ATTACHMENT A

1. The NAVFAC Form PPQ shall be utilized for all evaluations that require a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

2. Solicitations utilizing PPQs shall include the language cited below in the RFP.

“Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT

SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS

EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor (insert applicable factor number, usually Factor 1, and insert factor title, usually 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 Government's point of contact, Patti Borja, via email at pattti.borja@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.”

N4008518R3009

ATTACHMENT A

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Entity Identifier Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses,…