21R0071 Amendment 0003.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

DESIGN-BUILD (DB) / DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB), INDEFINITE DELIVERY / INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ), MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC) FOR MINOR CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR PROJECTS AT NSA CRANE, IN AND GLENDORA TEST

FACILITY, SULLIVAN, IN

SEE SF30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

Contract POC: Rachel Honecker; Email: rachel.n.honecker.civ@us.navy.mil; Phone: (757) 341-1652

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Aug-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 N4008521R0071

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Jul-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 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

04-Aug-2021

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

CONTRACTING CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008521R0071

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide the following:

1. PPI responses.

2. AMI Metering Overview attachment.

3. 3259_Transformer Specifications attachment.

4. Extend the proposal due date from 10 August 2021 to 12 August 2021.

5. Revised Instructions to Offerors.

Reference Question Response

Page

Section Paragraph

1 9 00 21 16 14 Would NAVFAC extend the past performance relevancy to 8 years instead of 5 years in order to allow for greater competition and chance to best represent company past performance?

Please see Amendment 0003.

2 Can the government please confirm that there is no bona fide office requirement for this solicitation?

Confirmed.

3 15 of 51 00 21 16 (4) i, paragraph 1

The government states "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."

Out of respect for our government POC time, can offeror submit previously completed PPQ (if no CPAR is available) in lieu of requesting the POC to completed another PPQ on the same project?

Please see page 15 of 51 of the SF1442. "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 shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not precluse the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation."

4 (4) i, paragraph 1

The government states "...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, Rachel Honecker, via email at rachel.honecker@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs."

Can the government please confirm that offerors are allowed to submit the completed PPQ within their proposal and not required to have their POC submit the PPQ directly to Rachel Honecker?

Confirmed.

5 15 of 51 00 21 16 (4) i, paragraph 1

The government states "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."

As required by Factor 1, offerors will be submitting 3-5 projects for their proposed DOR. Government POC typically will not complete PPQs or CPARS for DORs as the DOR is often hired and managed by the Prime Contractors rather than the government agency. The government agency is typically not able to evaluate/review the DOR performance as their performance was under the Prime Contractor not the government. As such, will PPQs completed by Prime Contractors be accepted under Factor 4 Past Performance for the DOR's projects?

Yes.

6 8 of 51 00 21 16 4.

Evaluation Factors for Award - (2)

Basis of Evaluation, paragraph 6

5. The government states that "electronic submission of the proposal will not be accepted, Proposal shall be submitted by Mail Only"

Due to the continued recovery from the Covid 19 Pandemic, several companies have yet to return to in-person operations. As such, would the government please consider accepting electronic submissions (via email or a government-safe portal) only for this solicitation?

Proposal shall be sumbitted by Mail Only.

7 17 of 51 00 21 16 5.2 Proposal Submission Instructions

- paragraphs

1-4

6. The government states in paragraph 4 "The Non-Price and Price HARD COPY proposals shall be delivered by MAIL ONLY two business days after the submission date for the electronic copy listed above unless those dates are changed via Solicitation Amendment."

However, in paragraph two it states "The Price Proposal and the Non- Price Factors Proposal shall be submitted in separate 3-ring binders."

(1) Can the government please clarify if electronic (via email or some government portal) is allowed for submission of the Price and Non- Price Proposals?

(a) If so, can the government please clarify where the electronic submission shall be sent to?

(2) If there is a requirement for electronic submission - will these electronic submissions be due August 10th, and then the Hard Copies of the submission (based on the previous instructions) be due two days later, making the submission of Hard Copies due August 12th rather than August 10th?

Please see Amendment 0003.

8 15 of 51 00 21 16 (3) Factor 3 Management Approach - Paragraph 2 bullet 7

The government states "A list of current employees able to serve as a Project Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and/or Sight Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)."

Can offeror provide 1 personnel for a dual hatted position of Quality Control Manager/SSHO?

Yes.

9 1 of 10 Contractor

SOW,

Demolition

Drawings, What is the thickness of the concrete slab to be saw cut in B3259?

Reference "PW6197" attached.

10 4 of 10 Contractor SOW, Life

Safety

Drawings, Is the offeror to provide updated fire alarm system as-built drawings? If so, in what form does the base want them?

Not required.

11 4 of 10 Contractor SOW, Life

Safety

Drawings, Regarding the fire alarm system, is a manufacturer-trained representative required for installation, programming, and testing?

Yes.

12 4 of 10 Contractor

SOW,

Exterior Electrical

Drawings, Is Schneider AMI metering the only option for the transformer electric metering?

The base standard is Schneider. See attached "AMI metering overview".

13 7, 15-16 of 17

Section 5.2, Amendment

The RFP and Amendment 01 (p. 7) state that "Electronic submission of proposals will not be accepted.

Proposals shall be submitted by

MAIL ONLY."

The RFP and Amendment 01 (p. 15) state that "the Non-Price and Price HARD COPY proposals shall be delivered by MAIL ONLY two busines days after the submission date for the electronic copy listed above."

Page 16 of the same document states

"PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN

RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST

FOR PROPOSAL MUST BE

RECEIVED NO LATER THAN

THE DATE AND TIME

SPECIFIED IN BLOCK 13A OF

THE SF1442."

Please clarify.

Please see Amendment 0003.

14 7 Section 5.2, Amendment

The RFP and Amendment 01 (p. 7) state that "Electronic submission of proposals will not be accepted.

Proposals shall be submitted by

MAIL ONLY."

Does this indicate US Postal Service Mail only, or may the offeror use UPS / FedEx for delivery?

The offeror may use any delivery service.

15 8 Section 5.2, Amendment

Within the "Corporate Experience" section, the offeror is to provide Attachment D information for 3-5 Construction and 3-5 Design projects. Part of the description of relevance for "Construction" projects reads as follows:

"a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects.

Subcontractor experience will not be considered.

b) Experience with design of renovation (at least one relevant project).

c) Experience with design-build (at least 1 relevant project)."

As we will be working with an A/E firm on this contract, and will be citing design projects as a separate section, please clarify what is intended with "b) Experience with design of renovation."

Experience with design of renovation means that the project cannot be new construction and must be a renovation.

16 3 of 10 Contractor

SOW,

ESD

Epoxy Floor

Drawings, What is the desired ohms for the ESD epoxy floor?

This is addressed in amendment #2.

4. In “ESD Epoxy Floor” section, item #1a should read “New ESD epoxy flooring shall provide electrical resistance from surface to surface and surface to ground between equal to or greater than 1 x 10^5 Ω/sq but less than 1 x 10^12 Ω/sq or a volume resistivity equal to or greater than 1 x 10^4 Ω-cm but less than 1 x 10^11 Ω-cm.2 when tested in accordance with ANSI ESD S20.20-2014, 97.2.”

17 3259 Drawing Set Pages 5, 7 & 10

The drawings and SOW show the existing panel RP and relocated panel B at separate ends of the building without a main service entrance disconnect, which is against the NEC. Should we quote adding a main service disconnect on the exterior of the building and feeding both panels from the disconnect? If so can we run panel feed to panel B above the drop ceiling in lieu of underground outside of the building?

Contractor shall route two sepaate conduits out of the pad mount transformer, feeding two separate electrical fused service disconnects mounted on the outside of B3259, each sized according to the panel they are feeding. The conduit shall then be routed out of each service disconnect thru the wall to the appropriate panel and can be ran overhead above the suspended ceiling. All exterior conduit shall be ridgid metal conduit, and interior conduit can be IMC or EMT. All conduit and wire shall be appropriatley sized per NEC.

18 3259 Drawing Set Pages 5, 7 & 10

The SOW calls to intercept and reuse the underground feed to panel RP and the feed looks to be running through the footprint of the new pad mounted transformer. Would it be acceptable to install conduit and wire from transformer and come up the outside of the exterior wall and penetrate wall to panel?

Yes it is accepatable to come up outside wall and penetrate wall to panels. Please see PPI 17 for clarification.

19 RFP page

Transformer Exterior Electrical

Questions/Clarifications needed regarding the Transformer: Delta or Wye to 208Y/120?? Copper or Aluminum windings?? Live front or dead front primary bushings??

Radial feed (3 bushings on HV) or Loop feed (6 bushings in "V" configuration on HV?? Any two or four position on/off load break switch integral to transformer??

Any bayonet fusing required?? Any surge/lightning arrestors required?

See "3259_Transformer Spec" attached.

20 8 of 17 Factor 1 Experience

1.i. "For construction experience requirements: Size: A final construction cost of $30,000 or greater. At least one (1) relevant project must have a final construction cost of $250,000. That’s a very specific amount. Should this not be a cost range of something, like $200,000 – $250,000 or something along those lines? Or does it mean that at least one (1) project must be $250,000 or more?

Please see Amendment 0003

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Aug-2021 02:00 PM to 12-Aug-2021 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SEED PROJECT

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

4. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

5.1 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

5.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

5.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIS)

5.4 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES (SAM.GOV)

5.5 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

6. ATTACHMENTS:

6.1 ATTACHMENT A – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

6.2 ATTACHMENT B – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

6.3 ATTACHMENT C – PPI LOG TEMPLATE

6.4 ATTACHMENT D – PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

1. GENERAL

1.1 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.1.1 THIS SOLICITATION IS BEING ISSUED AS A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. THE NAICS

CODE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT IS 236210 AND THE SIZE STANDARD IS $39.5M.

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2.1 This solicitation is formatted as a Request for Proposal (RFP) in accordance with the requirements designated by sections of the FAR 15.203. This method permits evaluation of proposals based on price competition, technical merit and other factors; permits impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors' proposals; permits discussions if necessary; and ensures selection of the source(s) whose performance provides the best value to the Government.

This acquisition will be solicited as a competitively negotiated procurement as a total small business set-aside.

1.2.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any or all offerors; to award the contracts to other than the offeror submitting the lowest total price; to award to other than the offeror submitting the highest technically rated proposal; and to award to the offeror submitting the proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government. OFFERORS

ARE ADVISED THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR ANY CONTACT

CONCERNING THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable price and technical terms. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of proposals or conduct discussions providing an opportunity for the offeror to revise its proposal.

1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

1.3.1 This acquisition will result in the award of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACCs) for Minor Construction, Renovation, and Repair Projects at NSA Crane, IN and Glendora Test Facility, Sullivan, IN. Work may be required in other areas in the area of responsibility of NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. The Government intends to award up to five (5) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best values after evaluation in accordance with the factors and their relative importance unless the Source Selection Authority determines that award to more than five (5) offerors is appropriate.

1.3.2 Construction projects to be performed under this MACC will require the ability to manage multiple task orders concurrently. The intention of the solicitation is to obtain Minor Construction, Renovation, and Repairs at the Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane, Indiana and the Glendora Test Facility, Sullivan, Indiana. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, materials, supplies, equipment, tools, and transportation to perform all work associated with various construction, renovation, or repair projects ranging in size from $2,000.00 to $600,000.00 at assorted buildings and structures at NSA Crane, IN and the Glendora Test Facility, Sullivan, IN.

Lead or asbestos abatement may be required. Work in explosive facilities will be required. Larger projects will be issued as either fully designed projects or design build project. There is a possibility that projects at remote Military Reserve Centers up to 250 miles from NSA Crane may be offered; however, a vast majority of the work will be performed at NSA Crane. The selected contractor(s) will be responsible for all labor, supervision, engineering, design, materials, equipment, tools, parts, supplies, and transportation to perform all of the services described in the drawings and specifications provided for each individual project.

1.3.3 The completion date for the basic contract is one (1) year from the date of contract award with four (4) one-year option periods. The total five-year (base and four one-year options) estimated construction cost for all contracts is not to exceed $60,000,000.00 for the life of the contract. Projects for the MACC have an estimated construction cost between $2,000.00 and $600,000.00; however, smaller and larger dollar value projects may be considered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Government guarantees an award amount of $2,500.00 to each successful offeror.

1.3.4 After award of the initial contracts and “seed” project, the successful IDIQ contractors will compete for task orders based on best value, using the tradeoff process or lowest price technically acceptable (to include lowest price). Only the successful IDIQ contractors will compete for task orders.

1.3.5 The intent of this contract is that all MACC Contractors participate in pre-proposal conferences and site-visits and submit proposals on each task order. Contract awardees will be expected to submit a proposal for all Task Order Requests for Proposal (RFP) received from the Government. However, in the event a MACC awardee is unable to submit a proposal on a particular RFP, the contractor is required to notify, in writing, the Contracting Officer who issued the RFP and the ACO for the basic contract within five (5) working days from receipt of the RFP. A MACC awardee can only elect to withdraw from submitting a proposal on three (3) task order RFPs during the course of each year of the contract (base plus four options). Additional withdrawal requests, in excess of three

(3) per year, may result in the Government choosing not to exercise remaining option terms.

1.3.6 Each task order will contain project specific evaluation factors that will vary depending on the unique requirements for each task order. Additionally, each task order will cite a specific completion date and associated liquidated damages.

1.3.7 Contractor Performance Information: Contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the respective contractor performance evaluation report entry system located on the website http://www.cpars.gov/. Prior to commencement of work the contractor is required to provide the government with the name, phone number and e-mail address of the “Contractor’s Representative” that will be responsible for receipt and review of draft performance evaluations prepared by the government in the appropriate system. It is the contractor’s responsibility to keep this contact information current.

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SEED PROJECT

2.1 The initial project (seed project) to be awarded as the first task order along with the basic contract will be Design-Bid-Build NSWC Building 3259 MH60 Avionics Weapon Depot Repair Lab.

* Solicitation Section 01 00 00 will include the General Requirements for the seed project.

Pursuant to FAR 52.232-18, Availability of Funds, the Government's obligation under this solicitation, or any task order or contract that might result from the solicitation is entirely subject to, and contingent upon, the availability of appropriated funds. Should the Government be unable to award the seed project, the Government guarantees an award in the amount of $2,500.00 to each successful offeror upon award of the Multiple Award Construction Contracts. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract, including option years. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order for the seed project, might not result from this solicitation.

3. 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 contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

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

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

4. As stated in the solicitation, 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.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Safety Factor 3 – Management Approach Factor 4 – 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, and 3) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 4). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the 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 in accordance with the instructions below. For the hard copy, the offeror shall submit an original and one (1) copy, marked “Copy” and one (1) CD-ROM electronic copy, in a three ring binder with the following:

(i) 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;

(ii) Completed SF 1442 signed with all amendments acknowledged;

(iii) Price Proposal Form;

(iv) Copy of Representation and Certifications and proof of registration in System for Award Management (SAM);

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

(vi) 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

(vii) Responsiblity Determination Information (see below).

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

The Government will not consider price proposal information submitted in the non-price proposal. Likewise, the Government will not consider non-price proposal information submitted in the price proposal.

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.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price for the seed project. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items, if applicable. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section 00 70 00 of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

Non-price binder: The offeror shall submit in accordance with the instructions below. For the hard copy, the offeror shall submit an original and 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 indivial 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 electronic and hard copy (or CD-ROM), the hard copy 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 will not be accepted. Proposals shall be submitted by MAIL ONLY.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to obtain the RFP files, along with any amendments, from Opportunities (www.sam.gov).

The Non-Price and Price HARD COPY proposals shall be delivered by MAIL ONLY by the dates and times listed above, respectively, unless those dates are changed via Solicitation Amendment. NOTE: Hard copy proposals shall mirror the electronic versions submitted. In the event of discrepancy between the electronic and hard copies, the hard copy received by the due date and time will be the governing document.

Proposals shall be labeled

“PRICE PROPOSAL OR NON-PRICE PROPOSAL FOR RFP N4008521R0071, ATTN: Rachel Honecker; 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: Rachel Honecker, CON22

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 three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects to demonstrate your experience on projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the projects proposed for this MACC. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as:

Size: A final construction cost of $30,000.00 or greater. At least (1) one relevant project must have a final construction cost of $250,000.00 or greater.

Scope/Complexity: A relevant project is further defined as demonstrating the capability to perform general construction or building renovations with a diverse range of construction tasks.

Additionally, submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics:

a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects. Subcontractor experience will not be considered.

b) Experience with design of renovation (at least one relevant project).

c) Experience with design-build (at least 1 relevant project).

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past eight (8) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past eight (8) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. The design completion date shall be clearly stated on the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment D). Projects that are not yet completed or were not completed within the past eight

(8) years of the date of this RFP will be deemed Not Relevant.

Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered. Furthermore, the offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

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. Projects which are not complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP shall not be considered by the SSEB.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate Construction and Design Experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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. 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. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

For a JV, the offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, the offeror shall submit the signed and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

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.

Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered.

Design Experience:

While the seed project is not design-build, design-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC. Therefore, the offeror is required to address the design firm to be proposed on future projects.

Offerors shall clearly set out the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designer of Record (DOR) for future task orders under this MACC. Provide the full name of the firm, address, DUNS number, and CAGE code. The designated firm will be required to be utilized as the DOR on future design-build task orders under the resulting MACC, unless a substitution is approved by the Contracting Officer for the proposed task order.

To evidence this, offerors must submit a letter of commitment from the design firm proposed.

Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant projects as the designer of record that best demonstrate your experience in a diverse range of design tasks similar in size, scope and complexity to the projects proposed for this MACC.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as:

Size: A final construction cost of $30,000.00 or greater. At least (1) one relevant project must have a final construction cost of $250,000.00 or greater.

Scope/Complexity: A relevant project is further defined as demonstrating the capability to perform general construction or building renovations with a diverse range of construction tasks.

Additionally, submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics:

a) Experience as the designer of record submitted projects. Subcontractor experience will not be considered.

b) Experience with design of both new construction (at least 1 one relevant project) and renovation (at least one relevant project).

c) Experience with design-build (at least 1 relevant project).

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past eight (8) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past eight (8) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. The design completion date shall be clearly stated on the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment D).

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project and will not be considered; rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment D) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate Construction and Design Experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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 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.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor as the Designer of Record in order to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. In doing so, the Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered. Offerors that do not submit a minimum of three (3) relevant Construction Experience Projects and a minimum of three (3) relevant Design Experience Projects will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Relevant projects that demonstrate the ability to perform multiple projects simultaneously may be considered more favorably than those who do not have experience performing multiple simultaneous projects.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

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.

If the Offeror is 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. 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.

DART Rate = Number of DART Incidents x 200,000 Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

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

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

TCR Rate = Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000 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.

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) would indicate a strength.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk TCR Rate

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

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

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

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

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

d. The…