Amendment 0004.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 Amendment 0004 is to answ er late submitted RFI's. Also, Section L.5 and Section M have been edited for clarity. See continuation pages.

The date to submit RFI's has passed.

Contractors must acknow ledge all amendments w hen submitting their proposals.

The proposal due date and time remains unchanged.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Feb-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 N4008521R0036

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-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 11 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

19-Feb-2021

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

FEAD CHERRY POINT

BLDG 163 CURTIS ROAD

PSC BOX 8006

CHERRY POINT NC 28533-0006

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

kimberly.c.lacy Cross-Out

N4008521R0036

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 0004

Amendment 0004

These two questions were received after the cutoff date.

1. Is the equipment being replaced per the ASHRAE projected life expectancies?

A: No the equipment is not being replaced per ASHRAE projected life expectancies.

2. How many days will the contractor be provided to complete an initial inspection and review?

A: Upon award the Offer has the transition period to perform equipment assessments before contract start date.

Sections L and M of the contract has been updated to clarify evaluation process.

Section L.5. has been edited to reflect actual calendar years required for DART Rate and TCR Rate.

L.5.

Safety 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 specified five (5) 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 rates and TCR for the specified five (5) 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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

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. 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.

4. 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.

M.1 has been added and the remaining sections renumbered accordingly.

M.1. 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 lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

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 LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. In order to permit efficient competition, the Navy will utilize the following methodology. Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order (lowest price to highest price). The Navy will then evaluate the technical factors of the lowest priced proposal.

In the event the proposal is deemed Unacceptable, the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. The Navy will make award to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal from among the lowest priced proposals. However, the Navy, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology.

Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purpose of establishing a competitive range.

4. 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.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L.5. SAFETY

Safety 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 specified five (5) 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 rates and TCR for the specified five (5) 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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why..

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. 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.

4. 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.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been added by full text:

M.1. 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 lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

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 LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. In order to permit efficient competition, the Navy will utilize the following methodology. Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order (lowest price to highest price). The Navy will then evaluate the technical factors of the lowest priced proposal.

In the event the proposal is deemed Unacceptable, the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. The Navy will make award to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal from among the lowest priced proposals. However, the Navy, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology.

Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purpose of establishing a competitive range.

4. 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.

M.2. PRICE EVALUATION

Price 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:

1. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

2. Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

3. Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

4. 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 fixed-price and IDIQ items.

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

M.3. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Corporate Experience Basis of Evaluation:

An offer will be rated based on the analysis of whether the Corporate Experience submittal meets the solicitation requirements, demonstrating experience as the prime contractor on at least one (1) projects completed within the past 5 years of the date of issuance of the solicitation, and demonstrating experience in performing a contract of similar size,scope and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4. MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Management Approach Basis of Evaluation:

The Management Approach factor shall be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

1. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the performance objectives and standards as set forth in the Performance Work Statement.

2. The proposal provides a feasible management approach with the capability to, at least, meet solicitation performance objectives and standards.

M.5. SAFETY

Safety Basis of Evaluation:

The 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. To meet the minimum requirements, the Offeror must demonstrate the following:

1. DART rates at or below 2.99

2. TCR Rates at or below 4.49

NOTE: If the Offeror’s rates exceed the established levels above for any of the five years, it will result in a deficiency.

3. Technical Approach to Safety

a. Offeror 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. Offeror describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

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

4. 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.

M.6. PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance Basis of Evaluation:

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

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

The following have been deleted:

M.1. PRICE EVALUATION

M.2. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

M.3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

M.4. SAFETY

M.5. PAST PERFORMANCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

(End of Summary of Changes)