0001.pdf

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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section M - Basis for Aw ard.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Jan-2021

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 N4008520R0094

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jan-2021

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 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

14-Jan-2021

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM 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:

N4008520R0094

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:

M1. 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. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

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

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation considering risk in conjunction with the Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple Strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (G)

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one Strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable (A)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M)

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

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

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

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

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

d. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of Significant Weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

C. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50

United States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

o OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty and Job Transfer (DART) o Total Recordable Case (TCR) Rates o Offeror Technical Approach to Safety o OSHA 300A Form (Attachment F)

3. The safety elements should be collectively considered and then assigned an overall adjectival rating for the safety factor. The board will need to make a qualitative determination of the rating for safety taking into account the risk ratings for DART, TRC and the subjective evaluation of the narrative.

4. The board will not average the rating from the five previous complete calendar years for the DART, and TRC and should consider data trends.

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

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

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

Note: When the requirement is for goods or services in an industry with a much higher than average incident rate, the Source Selection Authority may authorize a proportional increase in acceptance rates to ensure fairness.

6. The board will utilize information from the OSHA 300A Form to calculate/verify the offerors DART and TRC rates. In the event the submitted DART and TRC rates differ from the information on the OSHA 300A Form, the information on the form will be held to be the intended rate.

D. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

2. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

For the purposes of this solicitation, a relevant project is defined in Factor 2 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm.

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

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Very Relevant

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. The SSEB will review all past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated selection criteria.

5. Performance Confidence Assessment. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the SSEB shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table 4 below.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so

Confidence sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

E. 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.

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.

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.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy of the price proposal 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 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.

• Provide an electronic copy of the price proposal

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

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

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

Non-cost/price Factors Submission Requirements:

Non-cost/price Factors Binder: Offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy that shall include the following:

• 8 ½ x 11 format

• 12-point Arial or Times New Roman font

• 100-page limit (inclusive of all charts, forms and other documentation responsive to the solicitation requirements), pages sequentially numbered.

• Include a cover page with Contract Number, Contract Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, Cage Code, Point of Contact and their phone and email address

• Include only information in response to Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4, as applicable

• Provide approved SBA JV Agreement or SBA approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement (if applicable)

• A complete electronic copy of the non-cost/price proposal as a single .pdf file.

• The non-cost/price proposal shall include responses to each non-cost/price factor as specified in Section M.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that merely repeating the Performance Work Statement Performance Objectives with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

Price proposals are not part of the 100-page limitation. Pages exceeding the 100 page limitation shall not be considered during evaluation of the proposal.

No pricing shall be included in 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.

NOTE: The non-cost/price proposal shall include submittals for each non-cost/price factor as specified below:

(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 d iscussed 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.

Incl ude a schedule of key events, and personnel actions/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 2.7.1.4 and provide a workforce management plan (not to exceed 10 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 Environmental/Energy Manager 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 E (Contractor’s Self-Performance Certification and 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”, that describes 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 - Management and Administration).

I nclude the methodology to be implemented to accomplish the performance requirements and detail how the proposed approach will effectively achieve each performance objectives and standards.

(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.

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: Offerors shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on at least one (1) relevant project. An offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered. A relevant project is a project where the offeror served as the prime contractor and the submitted project satisfies Size, Scope and Complexity.

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

Size: A Facility Investment service contract with a yearly value of at least $1.3 million or greater per year for recurring services. Non-Recurring services task orders for infrequent work will not be considered similar in size.

Scope: Clearly demonstrate the ability to provide maintenance and repair services to a wide variety of systems and equipment to include: Compressed Air Systems, Weight Handling Equipment (WHE), Paint Booth and Oven Systems, Blast Booth Systems, Fast Acting Door Systems, Dynamometer Systems, Hydraulic Test Bench Systems, Air Pollution Control System Steam Stall/ Pit Systems, Parts Washer Systems, Machine Tools, Fire Range Systems and Crane 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. Offeror may use subcontractor experience to demonstrate experience with a particular service only if that particular subcontractor is proposed to perform work on this requirement. Subcontractor experience will not be substituted for prime contractor experience in any case. As provided above, the board will not consider a project relevant unless the offeror served as the prime contractor on the submitted project. Projects submitted for consideration shall be provided on Attachment J-0200000-10 Recent/Relevant Experience Form with details that include percentage of work completed for both prime and proposed subcontractors.

Complexity: Submitted projects should clearly demonstrate the ability to respond simultaneously to Service Orders (Calls), recurring work and non-recurring work requirements for various types of equipment, and systems at various locations and buildings throughout the installation. Demonstrate the ability to manage competing priorities in order to support customer demands.

The attached Relevant Experience Form (Attachment D) 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 (having been performed for a period of at least one year) or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects with completion dates beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or base contracts with option years. If the project has option periods, state which option period is in progress (i.e. base, 1st option).

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 does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. An offeror proposing to perform as Prime Contractor for this solicitation may use experience from projects it performed as part of Joint Venture.

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 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 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 for Experience will not be considered.

(3) Factor 3- Safety:

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

Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the five (5) previous complete Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART and TCR rates for the five (5) previous complete CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

(1) DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If the Offeror has no DART rate for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

(2) TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

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

(4) Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

(5) The Government reserves the right to review other available sources

(public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

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

Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR 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.

1. DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99

Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

2. TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR Rate

Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

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

4. Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. The offeror is required to address the following:

a. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

5. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s

Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(4) Factor 4- Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of successful performance within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on a minimum of one up to a maximum of five 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 solely 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) 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 of the Firm. 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 must 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, Brett Garnett, via email at brett.garnett@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 (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/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/ affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), 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.

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

(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 which may consider, but is not limited to:

- 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

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been deleted:

BASIS FOR AWARD

(End of Summary of Changes)