N4008521R0052.pdf

SOLICITATION NO. N40085-21-R-0052 DESIGN-BID- BUILD, P-1043 WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT, HADNOT POINT, MARINE

CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

This project constructs an 8 million gallons per day (MGD) w ater treatment facility that utilizes membrane filtration technology. The membrane f iltration technology w ill better enable compliance w ith current and future regulatory requirements in addition to addressing possible salt w ater intrusion into the w ater supply aquifers.

P rovide adequate and environmentally compliant supply of potable w ater to meet the domestic, industrial, and fire protection requirements of Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune.

** All correspondence regardingt his solicitation shall be directed via email to Brittany Cristelli at brittany.cristelli@navy.mil.

BRITTANY N. CRISTELLI 757-341-1978

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

10-May-2021

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

X

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______15 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________1120 calendar days after receiving aw ard, notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________FAR 52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________24 Jun 2021 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

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

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

ACQUISITION CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

N4008521R0052 63

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

N4008521R0052

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

BASE PRICE

FFP

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1ND

NET AMT

OPTION 1 - DEMO OF EXISTING WTP 2 FT

FFP

OPTION 2 - RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN

FFP

PLANNED MODIFICATION - FF&E

FFP

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0002 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0003 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0004 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

4.4 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES

5 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

6. ATTACHMENTS: MAY BE LOCATED ON CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER ATTACHMENTS

6.1 ATTACHMENT A - PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY LOG

6.2 ATTACHMENT B – SECNAV5512/1 FORM

6.3 ATTACHMENT C - CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

6.4 ATTACHMENT D – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

6.5 ATTACHMENT E – HISTORICAL SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

6.6 ATTACHMENT F – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SPCD)

6.7 ATTACHMENT G – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.1.1 This solicitation is being issues as UNRESTRICTED FOR FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION.

1.1.2 The NAICS Code for this procurement is 237110 and the Size Standard is $39.5M.

1.1.3 This acquisition will be advertised utilizing FAR Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiation resulting in a Firm-

Fixed Price (FFP) Contract for Construction Services.

1.1.4 In accordance with DFARS 236.204, the estimated magnitude of construction is between $25,000,000 and

$100,000,000

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRACT

The general intent of this solicitation is to award a Fixed Price Construction Contract for design-bid-build (DBB) P- 1043 Water Treatment Plant Replacement, Hadnot Point, Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

This project constructs an 8 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment facility that utilizes membrane filtration technology. The membrane filtration technology will better enable compliance with current and future regulatory requirements in addition to addressing possible salt water intrusion into the water supply aquifers.

Provide adequate and environmentally compliant supply of potable water to meet the domestic, industrial, and fire protection requirements of Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune.

2. 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. 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. All technical factors, when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined, 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.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1– Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Management Approach & Schedule Factor 3– Small Business Utilization Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Past Performance

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

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

Price binder: Price shall be submitted on the Price Proposal Form included in the solicitation and submitted electronically in accordance with the instructions below. For the hard copy, the offeror shall submit one (1) copy, marked “Copy” and one (1) CD-ROM electronic copy, in a three ring binder with the following:

Cover page with solicitation number, solicitation title, offeror name, address, phone number, fax number, DUNS, CAGE code, Point of Contact (POC), POC phone number, and POC email address;

Completed SF 1442 signed with all amendments acknowledged;

Price Proposal Form;

Copy of Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for Award Management

(SAM);

Confirmation of filing of Veterans’ Employment and Training (VETS) VETS-4212 for the 2020 filing cycle;

Bid Guarantee in accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. Amount shall be at least 20 percent of the proposed price, but shall not exceed $3 million; and Responsibility Determination Information (see below).

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

In the event of a discrepancy between the electronic and hard copy, the electronic version of the proposal will govern.

The offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line items numbers (CLINs).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PRICE PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

RESPONSIBILTY DETERMINATION INFORMATION – In order to be eligible for award, the offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, specifically FAR 9.104-1, General Standards. In a separate tab, the offeror shall provide the following information in the price proposal package:

1. One (1) signed bank reference demonstrating adequate financial resources. If offeror’s firm has a line of credit – provide information on how many figures offeror can borrow against the line of credit (i.e. medium 6 figures – exact line of credit is not required).

2. The offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or signed by an authorized officer of the organization.

Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements, submit the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each company in the Joint Venture and discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies. The Government may also utilize Dun & Bradstreet reports to evaluate the financial capacity of the offeror.

3. Description of offeror’s facilities and equipment.

4. Other offeror’s work presently under contract.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (reference FAR 52.219-9 Alt II and DFARS 252.219-7003).

In accordance with FAR 19.7, all other than small businesses shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) utilizing the template provided as Attachment G. Acceptability of the SBSP will be considered a responsibility matter. The SBSP will not be evaluated or rated by the SSEB, but reviewed by a Small Business Professional/Authorized Representative and the Contracting Officer for acceptability. The SBSP shall be negotiated and/or accepted within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan within the time limit prescribed by the Contracting Officer will render the offeror ineligible for award of the contract. The SBSP will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

NAVFAC’s command-wide small business subcontracting targets are shown below. These may be higher or lower than percentages that would represent realistic, challenging, small business subcontracting goals for this acquisition consistent with efficient and effective performance of the contract. These targets are based on a percentage of total planned subcontract dollars.

SB 40%

SDB 5%

HUBZone SB 3%

WOSB 9%

SDVOSB 3%

The SBSP shall be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Utilization and Participation Factor (Attachment F). In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), when an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses are specifically identified in proposals, those small businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in the SBSP.

Please note that SBSP goals and the participation rates provided in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) WILL NOT be the same. The participation rates within the SBPCD are provided as percentages of the total contract value; subcontract plan goals are provided as a percentage of planned subcontracting dollars. While the percentages will differ, the types of products/services identified in the SBSP, should be the same as those products/services identified in the SBPCD. Likewise, the planned small business subcontract dollars in the SBSP will be equal to (or in some cases greater than) the extent of small business participation identified in the SBPCD.

Although required to be submitted with offeror’s price proposal, this information will not be evaluated as part of the price proposal. This information forms the basis of your firm’s responsibility determination should your firm be considered for award. Proposal packages from unsuccessful offerors will not be returned to the offeror, but shall be destroyed by the Contracting Officer. No certificate of destruction will be issued.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements, any planned modifications, and all option items (see attached Price Proposal Form). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section 00600 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:

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

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

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

(d) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

Non-price binder: The offeror shall submit electronically (and mark Original) in accordance with the instructions below. For the hard copy, the offeror shall submit one (1) copy, marked “Copy” in a three ring binder with the following:

Cover page with Solicitation Number, Solicitation Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, DUNS, CAGE Code, Point of Contact, Phone Number, and Email Address;

8 ½ x 11 paper, 12-point font;

Refer to individual factors for page limitations. Pages that exceed indicated page limitations shall not be evaluated;

Additionally, include an electronic version of the price and non-price proposal on one CD-ROM.

As with the price proposal, in the event of a discrepancy between the original and copies (or CD-ROM), the electronic version of the proposal will govern. Furthermore, any price information within the technical proposal (non-price proposal) will not be considered. Likewise, any technical/non-price information within the price proposal will not be considered.

Electronic submission of proposals shall be in accordance with 4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS.

Proposals shall be labeled

“PRICE PROPOSAL OR NON-PRICE PROPOSAL FOR RFP N40085-21-R-0052 ATTN: Brittany Cristelli; DO

NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM”.

Hand delivered proposals will not be accepted.

Express Mail to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic 9324 Virginia Avenue Building Z-140, Room 225 Norfolk, Virginia 23511 Attn: Brittany Cristelli, CON1

**The Government will not consider information submitted beyond the page limits set forth below.**

(1) Factor 1 Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects completed in the past ten (10) years from the date of RFP issuance that best demonstrates your experience on Water Treatment Plant (WTP) projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity. For the purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

Size: Projects demonstrating new construction of an industrial facility (e.g., water or wastewater treatment plant, industrial treatment plant, pharmaceutical plant, manufacturing plant) with a total construction value of $10,000,000 or greater.

Scope: Projects demonstrating new construction, retrofit, or expansion of one (1) or more Water Treatment Plants (WTP) or Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) with a rated design capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD) or larger.

Complexity: Projects demonstrating experience furnishing, installing, and commissioning programmable logic controller (PLC) based water or wastewater treatment plant supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems.

Note: Proposals must demonstrate experience with all three requirements: Similar Size, Scope, and Complexity.

However, all three requirements do not have to be shown on a single project. Each project presented by offerors must meet either similar Size, Scope, and/or Complexity to be considered relevant. Projects not meeting Size, Scope, and/or Complexity as defined above will not be considered.

Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether the project is new construction, retrofit, or expansion, and addresses and clearly demonstrates how the project meets the Size, Scope, and/or Complexity requirements as delineated above, and provides the final construction cost. The absence of any such information, or if the information provided does not clearly address these requirements, may result in the project being deemed Not Relevant.

Projects submitted for the offeror shall be completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP with the date clearly indicated on the Construction Experience Project Data Sheet, or the Government may deem the project Not Relevant.

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) 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 nor will the Government consider information submitted via any other medium.

Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) 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) as defined above by Size, Scope, and Complexity.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower.

Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Offerors may submit experience where a member of the JV performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how its work on that project met Size, Scope, and Complexity as defined above. Likewise, offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a project where it performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how its work on that project met Size, Scope, and Complexity as defined above.

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 and clearly describe the role that firm will have in the performance of the contract.

While the offeror must submit at least one relevant project, the offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a letter of commitment signed by both parties and a clear explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. An Offeror’s failure to include this information may result in the subcontractor’s experience not being considered. Additionally, more weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than those submitted for subcontractors. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. The Government will consider the offeror’s experience as a subcontractor only if the offeror clearly demonstrates that its work on the project met the above Size, Scope, and/or Complexity.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the above 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 consider only the first five (5) project submitted, including any projects submitted to evidence the relevant experience of a subcontractor(s). Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered.

Offerors submitting projects which meet Size, Scope, and Complexity all within a single project may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Offerors with greater numbers of projects meeting Size, Scope, and Complexity within a single project will be considered more favorably than those that have fewer.

Offerors that submit relevant projects that clearly demonstrate any of the following experience, in addition to meeting the Size, Scope, and Complexity as defined above, by means of clearly providing sufficient evidence may be considered more favorably than those that do not:

– WTP projects that have a rated finished water design capacity greater than 4.0 million gallons per day

(MGD).

– Projects that employ membrane filtration technology. For the purposes of this solicitation, membrane filtration is defined as a pressure- or vacuum-driven separation process in which particulate matter larger than 1 micron is rejected by an engineered barrier.

– Construction of a Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersection.

– Construction/installation of medium-voltage electrical distribution systems.

– Construction/installation of marine outfalls.

– Integrating PLC based SCADA systems with existing infrastructure.

(2) Factor 2 – Management Approach and Schedule:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a Narrative Work Plan and a Project Schedule in CPM format to describe your approach to managing the subject project to ensure adherence to schedule and construction sequencing as required in the RFP. The Narrative shall not exceed five (5) double-sided (or ten (10) single-sided) 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

Provide the CPM format Project Schedule source file, a PDF file, and the Summary Level, and Critical Path Schedule, documenting any multiple Critical Paths in 11” x 17” pages. There is no page limit on the Summary Level, Critical Path and entire CPM schedule.

The Narrative work plan shall address:

- major elements of work and demonstrate understanding of the scope,

- major milestones,

- technical complexities,

- activities that may affect the project timeline, including other/off site work activities, and

- the sequenced construction schedule needed to maintain operational use of the existing water treatment plant (Building 20) throughout construction of the new plant.

o Note: Demolition of the old WTP shall commence no sooner than 30 calendar days from the date that "Final Approval" is issued by the NCDEQ Public Water Supply Section.

Provide a detailed construction schedule that illustrates your ability to achieve or improve on the requirements of the RFP while keeping within the RFP’s requirements. Identify the overall completion time for this project in accordance with the RFP as well as interim completion times (including each phase of work as identified in the RFP) and key milestones for sequences as required to complete the construction. The schedule shall demonstrate an understanding of the work and a logical sequence of events to accomplish the scope of work as defined in the RFP.

The schedule shall be submitted on 11" x 17" paper and shall contain enough information to identify all the major milestones.

NOTE: The Offeror’s proposal must AT LEAST comply with the required contract duration indicated in this RFP.

If the Offeror’s proposal provides a shorter duration than specified in the RFP, if selected for award, the proposed duration may be incorporated into the resultant contract at the Government’s discretion. Offerors who propose durations longer than the RFP will be rated as UNACCEPTABLE.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The offeror will be evaluated to determine the level of understanding of the requirements of the RFP. A schedule that does not address all items listed above may be rated as UNACCEPTABLE.

Proposals that identify areas of risk in logistics and resource management, and provide a comprehensive contingency plan that addresses the risks, may be rated higher.

Offerors who address risks in resource management through the proposed use of key personnel with demonstrated experience on relevant projects contracted with the United States Government may be rated higher.

(3) Factor 3, Small Business Utilization and Participation

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to Small Business (SB) concerns, including Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and other small business concerns. Further, it is the policy of the Government that such concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance.

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns and the proposed small business participation commitment for this requirement. The Offeror is required to demonstrate its previous commitment to SBs through its record of past utilization of SBs and its planned level of commitment to small business if awarded a contract under this solicitation.

1. All Offerors (both Other than Small Businesses (OTSB) AND SBs shall use Attachment E (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Attachment E shall be provided for each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience. Failure to submit Attachment E for each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, or the failure to fully complete Attachment E may result in a Deficiency.

2. All Offerors (both OTSBs and SBs) shall use Attachment F (Small Business Participation

Commitment Document (SPCD)) to submit the following required information for evaluation of this factor:

To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify all planned subcontractors by name that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB). To the extent feasible, identify the type and complexity of product/service to be subcontracted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) with each subcontractor.

To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the Offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 20%. All Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate of 20% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

Large business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting with other small business concerns.

Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors are required to provide a detailed explanation for the methods used to develop the small business participation rates.

Offerors simply proposing a 20% total small business participation rate without describing the methods used may be rated lower.

If the Offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the realism and likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition based on the following:

The extent to which the Offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns (including all of the various socioeconomic categories of small business, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts.

The extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses

(including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation rate, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

Attachment E – Historical Small Business Utilization Attachment F – Small Business Participation Commitment Document

(4) Factor 4, 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 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, the Offeror must 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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, the Offeror must 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. 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.

(ii) 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. 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) could 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 Risk.

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) could 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 Risk.

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. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

a. Describes a viable SMS that addresses 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. 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.

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.

(5) Factor 5, Past Performance:

The offeror shall submit the following information:

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 1, Corporate Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT

SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment D), 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, Ms. Brittany Cristelli via email at brittany.cristelli@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the

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

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

IMPORTANT: It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide accurate points of contact for each identified contract and current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified.

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.

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

Performance awards or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(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 include, 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

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. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

A pre-proposal conference/site visit will be held, with details being made available via Amendment.

4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In response to this request for proposal, the complete proposal shall include both the Price Proposal and the Non- Cost/Price Factors Proposal, submitted in accordance with the above Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor and as follows:

The Price Proposal and the Non-Cost/Price Factors Proposal shall be submitted in separate 3-ring binders. All pages shall be numbered and binders shall be appropriately tabbed, conforming to the proposal submittal requirements’ structure for each evaluation factor. Price and Non-Cost/Price Factors proposals must be submitted in sealed envelopes or boxes. Any pricing information included in the Non-Cost/Price Factors proposal will not be considered. Similarly, any Non-Cost/Price information included in the Price Proposal will not be considered.

Proposal shall be labeled “PRICE PROPOSAL OR NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS PROPOSAL FOR RFP

N4008521R0052, ATTN: BRITTANY CRISTELLI; DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM”.

The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information required and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated herein, for non-conformance may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

All proposals shall be mailed to the following address:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic 9324 Virginia Avenue Building Z-140, Room 225 Norfolk, Virginia 23511 Attn: Brittany Cristelli, CON21

Hand Carried Proposals: Hand carried proposals will not be accepted.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THIS…