N40085-20-R-2111-0004.pdf

ACQR5759101

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

Repave Parking Lot/Alley, Bldg. 104, NAVSTA Great Lakes

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the IDOT prequalification requirement. The Pre-Proposal Inquiry deadline is extended through 1400 CDT Friday, May 15 2020. The proposal due date is extended to 1200 CDT Friday, May 29. Pre-Proposal Inquiry response 8 is added, and responses to questions 1 and 2 are modified as outlined in the Continuation Sheet.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-May-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 N4008520R2111

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-2020

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 X is extended, 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

11-May-2020

CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

PWD GREAT LAKES - FEAD

310 SEABEE WAY

GREAT LAKES IL 60088-2814

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008520R2111

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 04 PPI RESPONSES

OFFEROR NAME: Government Response Project Title: Bldg. 104 Repave Parking

Lot

ADDRESS: 310 SeaBee Way, Bldg. 1H, Great Lakes L 60088

DATE: 11 May 2020

PHONE NUMBER: 847‐688‐5395 x 248

EMAIL: kenneth.d.seymour@navy.mil

PPI Questions Question

No.

Reference

(Sect/Para/Pa ge)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Factor 1 - Experience

Will it be acceptable if a prime contractor submit subcontractor's IDOT qualification to meet the requirement? Please clarify.

No. Prime contractor must meet IDOT qualification requirements. Yes

2 Factor 3 - Past

Performance

Can a prime contractor submit subcontractor's past performance experience? Please clarify.

No. Prime contractor must submit their own past performance. Yes

3 Scope of Work, page 3

The scope states mill and pave, remove and replace concrete, and remove and replace existing asphalt. I also see 3 1/2 inches.

What are the specs for installation?

Base and top or just one layer.

2" Binder, 1 1/2" Surface (compacted thickness) over compacted aggregate base

4 General With no site visit, we will not be able to field verify the dimensions so are we correct in assuming dimensions/quantities given are correct?

Quantities are estimated. This solicitaton includes FAR clause 52.211-18, Variation in Estimated Quantiity. Dimensions shall be assumed to be correct.

5 General Will emailed proposals be accepted?

Yes. Proposals may be emailed to kenneth.d.seymour@navy.mil. Proposal MUST be separated into separate price proposal and the technical proposal fles in .pdf format. It is the proposor's responsibility to ensure the proposal is received on time regardless of the method used to submit.

6 General What is the magnitude of this project?

Between $100,000 and $250,000

7 Scope of Work, page 3

The SOW states “Concrete removal and pavement replacement: 2,000 SF” Is the concrete removed to be replaced by asphalt? If it is to be replaced with concrete, what thickness and psi is required?

Yes, replace miscellaneous concrete areas with ashpalt section listed in 3 above.

Replace concrete sidwalks and curbs with with concrete. Walks and curbs subject to vehicle traffic must be 6in thick minimum.

(From Civil UFC 3-201-01)

4-1.4 Rigid Pavements.

The minimum flexural strength for portland cement concrete pavements at 28 days is 650 psi (4.48 MPa). No reduction in thickness will be allowed for increased flexural strength. The minimum compressive strength for portland cement concrete sidewalks, curbs, and gutters is 3500 psi (25 MPa). Provide air entrainment in all exterior concrete pavements in areas subject to freezing temperatures. Use plain (non-reinforced) concrete for rigid pavements for roads and parking areas at military installations; use reinforced concrete for odd-shaped slabs or mismatched joints. An odd-shaped slab has a length to width ratio greater than 1.25:1. Clearly indicate on the drawings the specific individual slabs requiring reinforcement.

8 General WE will be emailing our solicitation responses to you by the required time and date. Do you want 3 separate attachments with virtually the same information, or will you at your office prnt three copies.

Emailed submittals shall include one file for the technical proposal and one file for the price proposal. The Government shall distribute the proposals internally as needed.

The following have been deleted:

AMENDMENT 03 PPI RESPONSES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-May-2020 12:00 PM to 29-May-2020 12:00 PM.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposors shall separate price and non-price factors in separate volumes. NO

PRICING INFORMATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL.

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors:

In making the best value award decision, the LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least "ACCEPTABLE" in order to be eligible for award. An "UNACCEPTABLE" rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated "UNACCEPTABLE" unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of "UNACCEPTABLE" makes a proposal ineligible for award.

Since the LPTA methodology prohibits trade-offs, all evaluation factors and sub-factors are equally important. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost and/or price factors.

The non-cost and/or price factors that will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable shall be as follows:

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

Factor 1 – Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as paving and site work modifications. Similar size includes projects valued between $100,000 and $500,000. Contractor may submit projects of a greater value if the value of the paving portion falls within these values. Contractor must have knowledge and experience with materials and applications best suited for paving and site work projects through use of approved/appropriate techniques/methods and use of materials compatible with existing materials.

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 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 Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A -DBB) 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).

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).

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. 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 in order for the past performance information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g.

personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered.

Offerors shall include a copy of their Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) prequalification certification.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The requirement for acceptability will be based upon the projects submitted by the Offeror in its proposal, the Offeror must have at least Two (2) projects that demonstrate relevant corporate experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract. Offerors that do not include an IDOT prequalification certificate shall be considered Unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award.

Factor 2 – Safety

(a) 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. TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate:

For the five (5) previous complete calendar years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019), submit your OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate, as defined by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA TRC Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC Rate data should be addressed as part of this element. OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

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

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years (2017, 2018, 2019), submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data should be addressed as part of this element. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to qualify, evaluate, select and oversee its potential subcontractors. The Safety narrative shall be limited to one page. Offerors must submit both (1) a plan to include the safety performance of subcontractors in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and (2) a plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, highlighting what specific management practices will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than

3.0. Offerors who fail to submit either of these will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has an acceptable safety record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record as evidenced by the TRC and DART rates, if the Offeror’s plan includes safety in the evaluation and selection of subcontractors, and if the narrative includes a plan to monitor the safety performance of subcontractors during performance. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

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

The Government will evaluate the OSHA TRC Rate to determine if the Offeror’s OSHA TRC rate is above 4.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

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

The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror’s OSHA DART rate is above 3.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine if subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the qualification, evaluation, selection, of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project, and both the plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, highlighting what specific management practices will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than 3.0. Offerors who fail to address either of these items (i.e. whether the safety performance of subcontractors will be evaluated in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and whether the safety of those subcontractors will be monitored during contract performance) will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1.

If there is not a completed CCASS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 1. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ken Seymour, Kenneth.d.seymour@navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. 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 Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture 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.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

The Government will consider the currency 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.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Price Evaluation

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall provide two (2) copies of their Price Proposals including acknowledgement of any amendments.

Offerors shall provide completed Representations and Certifications, found in Section K of the RFP.

Offerors shall provide a bid bond that is no less than 10% of the bid price with their proposal.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price for Item 0001. Proposals that provide prices greater than the Design-Build Budget Amount may be rejected.

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

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

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the Government Estimate (GE).

(c) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

EVALUATION

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range (if applicable); and to award the task order to the offeror submitting the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable proposal.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection

Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the SSEB determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition range can be conducted, the SSEB 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.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint.

3. The Low Price, Technically Acceptable process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the proposal with the lowest evaluated price that is technically acceptable.

(End of Summary of Changes)