Amendment 0008 N4008519R9223.pdf

ACQR5752694

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Facility Investment, Pest Control and Railroad Maintenance Services at Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Albany GA

This Amendment is issued to provide proposal inquires and responses related to the proposal, and incorporate a revised Section M.

All other Terms and Conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Jan-2020

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008519R9223

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Dec-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

31-Jan-2020

CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

ACQUISITION CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008519R9223

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0008

31 January 2020

SOLICITATION N40085-19-R-9223 - FACILITY INVESTMENT, PEST CONTROL

AND RAILROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS

BASE (MCLB), ALBANY GA.

Amendment 08 - Questions & Responses (cont’d):

#131. Is the contractor responsible for maintaining the pools in building 7382 in addition to the chlorine generator?

Answer #131. There is no specific Spec Item addressing any requirements related to maintaining pools.

Question #132. Reference: Solicitation B Evaluation Factors for Award (2) Recent and Relevant Experience of the Firm (i) Scope: Demonstrate the ability to provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials, equipment to perform Facility Investment Services to include: Railroad Maintenance & Cleaning Services, Pest Control Services, and other services as defined by the RFP.

Would the Government consider removing the requirement for Past Experience as the Prime for Railroad Services and allow subcontractor Past Performance for that task? The requirement to demonstrate Railroad Maintenance experience at the dollar amount listed disqualifies the current prime contractor and all potential primes at the site visit. The requirement significantly reduces the number of qualified bidders and drastically reduces the government’s benefit from competition. Rail Road Maintenance falls under NAICS 488210 and is it’s own specialty industry. It would be nearly impossible for a potential prime Facility Maintenance contractor to have performed, as the prime, a large enough dollar amount of Railroad Maintenance work to qualify for past performance.

Answer #132. Refer to revised Section M, Factor 2 Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm, (i) Scope.

Question #133. If an offeror is utilizing experience or past performance information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), must the offeror control and manage the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm for the government to consider the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm's experience and past performance as if it were the offeror's own experience and past performance?

Answer #133. Refer to Section M, Factor 2 Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm, paragraph 8, which states “If an offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. The meaningful involvement shall be described in detail.”

Question #134. Is Experience and successful Past Performance on a similar NAVFAC contract rated higher than Experience and successful performance on a similar contract for a different government or commercial entity?

Answer #134. No. A similar NAVFAC contract will not be rated higher.

Question #135. Please clarify the response to Q111, as the revised Section L page limitations in Amendment 07 do not seem to apply to the Section M requirement for the Workforce Management Plan that is not to exceed 10 pages. Specifically, please confirm that the 10-page requirement in Section M only applies to the “Workforce Management Plan” in response to b (1) of Factor 1, and not the “Workforce Management” section in its entirety, which would be b(1) – b(4) of Factor 1.

Answer #135. Refer to Amendment 0008, Section M, Factor 1 Management Approach, (i) b(1), which has been revised as follows “not to exceed 20 pages.”

Question #136. We have reviewed Amendment 0007 for subject solicitation, but did not see an extension to the due date for proposals. Based on the changes and additional information provided in Amendment 0007, we respectfully request an extension to the due date. Please extend the due date to Monday February 10th.

Answer #136. The proposal due date of Thursday, Feb 6, 2020 remains the same.

Question #137. Are OEM manuals available for the VFDs?

Answer #137. OEM Manuals for the VFDs are available in the technical library.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

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

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

4. The relative importance of non-cost/price factors is that Factors 1, 2 and 3, are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment Factor 4. 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.

5. Any proposal found to have a Deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the Deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a Significant Weakness or multiple Weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified Weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the Weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1– Management Approach Factor 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

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

2. The relative importance of non-cost/price factors is that Factors 1, 2 and 3, are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment Factor 4. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the non-cost/price 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 Offeror’s 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 whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of the price proposal, in a separate three ring binder, that shall include the following:

Signed Solicitation, Offer and Award Forms (SF 33), including Section B (CLINs 0001 through 0010), with all amendments acknowledged.

Exhibits A through E (Attachment J-0200000-13) Copy of Representations and Certifications and proof of registration in System of Award

Management (SAM) via beta.sam.gov.

Confirm submission of the most recent Vets 4212 Report.

Provide name of financial institution, point of contract, telephone number and email address.

Provide a signed statement of release giving the reference permission to release the information to the Navy.

In addition to providing a hard copy of the price proposals, offerors shall also provide one (1) non-rewritable CD with pricing information. Offerors are advised that in the event of a discrepancy between pricing information contained on the CD and the hard copy, the hard copy will govern.

The price proposal shall be submitted separately but at the same time as the non-cost/price proposal.

Any price information on the non-cost/price proposal will not be considered. Likewise, any non-cost/price information in the price proposal will not be considered.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

Proposals will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

Completeness. All pricing information required by the solicitation has been provided, all mathematic computations are correct and the pricing application understood, prices are on an “all or none” basis, and failure to submit a price on an item or a number of items may cause this factor and the entire offer to be determined unacceptable.

Reasonableness. Price analysis comparisons indicate the offered price to be fair and reasonable, balanced across option years, and balanced between recurring and non-recurring items.

Unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete pricing may cause a proposal to be determined unacceptable.

(1) Factor 1, Management Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly demonstrates its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Each of the topics below must be included in the narrative and tabbed in the technical proposal and discussed separately.

a. Phase-In Transition Plan. Describe what you will do to “start-up” for performance of this contract. The phase in transition period is 30 days as per F.2 of the RFP.

Include a schedule of key events, personnel actions and responsibilities regarding employees at all levels.

b. Workforce Management.

(1) Demonstrate your ability to provide key personnel in accordance with

RFP Section 2.7.1 through 2.7.1.6 and provide a workforce management plan (not to exceed 20 pages) that describe the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, and subcontractors. The narrative shall include, at a minimum, Project Manager, Quality Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer, and on-site supervisor(s) and who they will report directly to for this contract.

(2) Describe the work to be performed as the prime contractor, as well as the work to be performed by each subcontractor proposed. The work to be performed, the subcontractors to be utilized, and their roles, shall be clearly identified. If the prime contractor will self-perform 100% of the work, it shall be clearly stated. Additionally, offeror must meet the requirements of FAR 52.219- 14, Limitation on Subcontracting and submit Attachment J-0200000-14 ( Contractor’s Self-Performance Certification & Notification of Subcontracting), as part of this Factor.

(3) Demonstrate your ability to provide and maintain a qualified workforce and clearly define the controls and/or processes that are in place to ensure continuity of services.

(4) Demonstrate your ability to manage numerous work requirements simultaneously with a dispersed workforce under competing priorities at multiple locations.

c. Quality Management. Provide a two-page summary of your “Quality Management

System” i.e. the Quality Processes (Practices, Resources and Activities) and minimum controls that will be used to ensure full compliance with all performance objectives and standards as described in (0200000-C) Management and Administration). Include the methodology to be implemented to accomplish the performance requirements and detail how the proposed approach will effectively achieve each performance objective and standard.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Management Approach factor shall be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

(a) The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the performance objectives and standards.

(b) The proposal demonstrates a thorough plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work on the contract start date. In addition, the proposal shall clearly define clearly the controls and/or processes that are in place to ensure continuity of services

(c) The proposal provides a feasible technical approach with the capability to, at least, meet solicitation performance objectives and standards.

(d) The proposal offers a low to moderate performance risk to the Government.

(2) Factor 2, Recent/Relevant Experience of the Firm:

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

Submit a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects, where the offeror served as the Prime Contractor that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. For projects submitted, experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered. Likewise, the Offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

Size, scope, and complexity are further defined as follows:

Size: A maintenance service contract with a yearly value of at least $1.3M or greater for recurring services. Indefinite Quantity / Indefinite Delivery values for non-recurring work will not be considered similar in size.

Scope: Demonstrate the ability to provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials, equipment to perform Facility Investment Services to include:

Building Systems: HVAC, Fire Protection, Vertical Transportation Equipment (VTE), Boilers (excluding Central Utility Plant Boilers), Unfired Pressure Vessels (UPV), Compressed Air Systems, Potable Water (including backflow prevention devices), Wastewater, Electrical, Auxiliary Generator Systems (including emergency and portable generators), Uninterruptible Power Systems (UPS), Grease Traps, Exhaust Hoods and Ducts, Exhaust Fans, Above Ground Storage Tanks and Underground Storage Tanks, Dust

Collectors, Weight Scales, Force Protection Systems, Reverse Osmosis Systems, Water Softeners, Hot Water Heaters, Environment Stabilization Systems (ESS), (including remote monitoring/control systems and air dehydration units), Fences, Locksmith (all locks including Lockmaster Security Lock – LKM-7003 w/Mas x-09 Type 1F), Drainage Ditches, Monuments, Flag Poles, Unpaved Roads (gravel roads), Roads and Paved Surfaces, Railroad Maintenance & Cleaning Services, and Pest Control Services. As defined by the RFP.

NOTE: Items shown above are not listed in order of importance. Offerors that are able to demonstrate relevant experience in a greater number of these services may be considered more favorably. Experience on the various services may be demonstrated collectively throughout the relevant projects submitted. Subcontractor experience may be provided for specific work elements only if that subcontractor is proposed to perform work on this requirement. However, the offeror must demonstrate experience as prime contractor on at least one relevant project. Subcontractor experience will not be substituted for prime contractor experience in any case. Projects submitted for consideration shall be provided on Attachment J-0200000-15 Recent/Relevant Experience Form with details that include percentage of work completed for both prime and proposed subcontractors.

Complexity: Demonstrate the ability to respond simultaneously to service calls (routine, urgent, and emergency), and maintenance requirements for various locations and buildings throughout the installation and supporting annexes. Demonstrate the ability to manage competing priorities in order to support customer demands.

The attached Recent/Relevant Experience Form (Attachment J-0200000-15) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form.

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

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be ongoing and /or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of the solicitation; dates beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or base contracts with options years. If the project has option periods, state which option period is in progress, if applicable.

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 as it relates to size, scope, and complexity.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience shall be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture itself does not have the required experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. For a JV, the offeror shall provide the signed U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)- approved Joint Venture Agreement or an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement as part of this Factor.

Failure to submit an SBA-approved Agreement will result in the relationship being considered as Prime/Subcontractor, and the prime contractor will not be found acceptable on the basis of the subcontractor’s experience only. Offerors are still limited to 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 SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. The meaningful involvement shall be described in detail.

The assessment of the offeror’s Recent/Relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. As noted above, to be deemed acceptable under this factor, the offeror must submit at least one (1) relevant project where the offeror served as the prime contractor (similar size, scope and complexity as the current requirement). The prime contractor will not be found acceptable on the basis of its subcontractor’s experience. Additionally, the prime contractor’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

The Government will only review five projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five

(5) for Experience will not be considered.

(3) Factor 3, 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): Submit the last 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, the offeror shall 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.

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

Submit the last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate for any year, the offeror shall affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA TRC rates for any year, the Offeror must affirmatively sate 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.

(4) Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last three complete calendar years.

(5) 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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Submit the last 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) Rate.

Submit the last three previous complete calendar years, the offeror must submit their OSHA DART as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART, the offeror shall affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate 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) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the last three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA TRC rates for any year, the Offeror must affirmatively sate 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.

(4) Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last three complete calendar years.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(4) Factor 4, Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of successful performance within the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance the solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to the RFP as defined in Factor 2, Recent/Relevant Experience. The prime contractor will not be found acceptable on the basis of the subcontractor’s past performance. Additionally, the prime contractor’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

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) (J-0200000-16), 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, Recent/ Relevant 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 (J-0200000-16), 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, Mrs. Susan Roberts, via email at susan.roberts2@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance of the solicitation), such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/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), 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.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment (J-0200000-16).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: 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

(End of Summary of Changes)