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

The purpose of this amendment is to update the evaluation factors and extend the proposal due date until 2 July 2021. See SF30 Block 14 Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-May-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 N4008521R2516

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Apr-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

19-May-2021

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

ACQUISITION CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008521R2516

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 update the evaluation factors and extend the proposal due date until 2 July 2021. See below.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

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 BETA.SAM.GOV

5 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

6. ATTACHMENTS: Will be located on Beta.SAM.gov

6.1 ATTACHMENT A - PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY LOG

6.2 ATTACHMENT B – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

6.3 ATTACHMENT C - CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

6.4 ATTACHMENT D – HISTORICAL SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

6.5 ATTACHMENT E – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SPCD)

6.6 ATTACHMENT F – 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 236210 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 $100,000,000 and

$250,000,000

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRACT

The general intent of this solicitation is to award a Fixed Price Construction Contract for design- build (DB) P-197 Aircraft Maintenance Hangar, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, NC.

This project constructs a two story low rise two squadron module Type 1 maintenance hangar for the F-35B Lightning II aircraft including a high bay space, crew and equipment space, and administrative space. The building will be concrete masonry unit on a pile supported reinforced concrete slab-on-grade foundation with structural steel framing, steel roof trusses and pre-finished insulated metal roof. Special construction features include 400Hz and 270v DC power, aircraft maintenance work stations, hanger work station kiosks, alarm systems, communication connections at aircraft parking locations, seismic construction, hazardous material storage areas, explosive material storage areas, sound attenuation, and vaults. Project includes taxiway remarking and the renovation to existing aircraft parking aprons in order to provide electrical grounding, work station kiosks and sun shades.

The hangar administrative space includes a special access program facility area for secured handling/storage of classified material/components up to top secret classification and pilot brief and debrief rooms. Other primary facilities include an aircraft parking apron and cybersecurity features. A parking structure for approximately 1,700 vehicles will be provided.

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 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 will be stated in the solicitation for this two-phase design-build procurement, Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5-7 will be evaluated in Phase II. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II unless corrected through discussions. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the Government will consider Factors 2-7 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are equal to each other and, when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3). 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:

PHASE I

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

PHASE II

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy Design Reduction Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization

The distinction between Experience and Past Performance is that Experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, 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. As will be stated in the solicitation for this two-phase design-build procurement, Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5-7 will be evaluated in Phase II. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II unless corrected through discussions. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the Government will consider Factors 2-7 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are equal to each other and, when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3). All technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

After evaluating Phase I proposals, the source selection authority shall select the most highly qualified offerors and request that only those offerors submit Phase II proposals. In accordance with FAR 36.303-1(a)(4), the solicitation shall state that a maximum of three offerors will be selected to submit Phase II proposals unless the Government determines that a number greater than three is in the Government’s best interest.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-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-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor:

a. Price: (PHASE II)

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Price binder: Price shall be submitted on the Price Proposal Form included in the solicitation and submitted electronically (and marked Original) 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 or CD-ROM, 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).

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. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall establish small business subcontracting plan goals and shall document in their subcontracting plans the basis for all proposed goals. Plans shall be submitted with initial offers.

SB 40%

SDB 5%

HUBZone SB 3%

WOSB 9%

SDVOSB 3%

Small businesses identified by name shall be listed in small business subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 in order to facilitate compliance with 252.219-7003(e).

See the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template (Attachment F) for format.

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-price Factors:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Non-price binder: The offeror shall submit electronically (and marked 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 hard 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 INSTRUCTION

Proposals shall be labeled

“PRICE PROPOSAL OR NON-PRICE PHASE II PROPOSAL FOR RFP N4008521R1225,

ATTN: John Bishop; 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 216 Norfolk, Virginia 23511 Attn: John Bishop, ACQ21

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

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team will be evaluated in this factor.

The offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of a significant design subcontractor is being claimed in Factor 2 - Experience, the firm must be included in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page or two (2) single-sided pages including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Failure to provide any of the above required information may result in the offeror being rated Unacceptable.

Offerors that are rated Unacceptable in this factor will be found ineligible to proceed to Phase II unless corrected through discussions (if held).

Factor 2 – Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall demonstrate relevant experience with aircraft hangar and parking structure construction projects as detailed below.

The offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Aircraft Hangar Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and up to a maximum for five (5) relevant construction projects for the offeror that best demonstrates your experience as a prime contractor (or as a subcontractor as discussed below) on relevant projects that are similar in Size, Scope, and Complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $35,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of or an addition to an aircraft maintenance hangar. Neither pre-engineered building systems nor renovations will be considered.

Complexity: For at least one relevant project (meeting the Size and Scope as defined above), the offeror must demonstrate a column-free open hangar bay clear span not less than 200-ft.

While only one Relevant project needs to meet Complexity, the remaining projects must meet the above Size and Scope in order to be considered Relevant.

Note: Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered for Aircraft Hangar experience. If the offeror submits experience where it performed on the project as a subcontractor, the offeror must clearly demonstrate that its work on the project met all of the requirements detailed above.

Parking Structure Experience:

Submit a minimum of one (1) and up to a maximum of three (3) relevant construction projects that best demonstrates your experience on parking structure projects as a prime contractor (or as a subcontractor as discussed below) similar in Size, Scope, and Complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of a concrete parking structure or complex concrete structure. Renovations will not be considered.

Complexity: Two or more stories.

Note: Experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered for Parking Structure experience. If the offeror submits experience where it performed on the project as a subcontractor, the offeror must clearly demonstrate that its work on the project met all of the requirements detailed above.

Projects submitted for Aircraft Hangar Experience shall be no less than 85% complete within the past twelve (12) years prior to the date of issuance of the RFP and must clearly explain how the project meets this requirement.

The following applies to both the Aircraft Hangar and Parking Structure Experience.

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 C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate Construction and Design Experience, the offeror must submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design or the Government reserves the right not to consider the project. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the project completion date (or address Hangar Experience as discussed above), scope of work performed, and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods) or the project may be deemed not relevant.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. 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 may submit experience where a member of the JV performed as a JV with another entity. Likewise, offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a project where it performed as a JV with another entity, but the offeror must clearly describe the work it performed on that project and how it meets the above requirements. Offerors are still limited to a total of eight (8) projects combined. For a JV, the offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, 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 in the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered.

(2) Design Experience:

Aircraft Hangar experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and up to a maximum for five (5) relevant design projects for the offeror that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience (or the experience of a design subcontractor as discussed below) on relevant projects that are similar in Size, Scope, and Complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $35,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of or an addition to an aircraft maintenance hangar. Neither pre-engineered building systems nor renovations will be considered.

Complexity: For at least one relevant project (meeting the Size and Scope as defined above), the offeror must demonstrate a column-free open hangar bay clear span not less than 200-ft.

While only one Relevant project needs to meet Complexity, the remaining projects must meet the above Size and Scope in order to be considered Relevant.

Parking Structure Experience:

Submit a minimum of one (1) and up to a maximum of three (3) relevant design projects for the offeror that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience (or the experience of a design subcontractor as discussed below) on parking structure projects similar in Size, Scope, and Complexity to the RFP and defined as follows:

Size: Final construction cost of $15,000,000 or greater.

Scope: New construction of a concrete parking structure or complex concrete structure. Renovations will not be considered.

Complexity: Two or more stories.

The following applies to the Aircraft Hangar and Parking Structure projects.

Projects submitted must have been completed within the past twelve (12) years prior to the date of issuance of the RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Submissions that do not meet the above requirements or provide sufficient information for the Government to determine that the project meets the above requirements will be deemed not relevant.

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; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate Construction and Design Experience, the Offeror MUST submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Failure to do so may result in the project not being considered for construction or design experience if a form is not specifically submitted. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the completion date, scope of work performed, and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process. Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether the project is new construction and provides the square footage and final construction cost, and addresses how the project meets the above size, scope, and complexity requirements.

Submissions that do not meet the above requirements or do not provide sufficient information for the Government to determine that the project meets the above requirements will be deemed not relevant.

If an offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered.

The offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment from the design firm and an explanation of the significant involvement for the design subcontractor. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered. Offerors proposing multiple design firms should submit relevant project experience for all design firms. Failure to do so may result in a lower rating. Offerors are still limited to a total of eight (8) projects combined.

The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined above 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. Any projects submitted in excess of the requirements for Construction Experience and/or for Design Experience will not be considered and will review only the first five submitted for each if the offeror submits more.

Relevant projects where the offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may receive a higher rating than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may receive a higher rating than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may receive a higher rating than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. If a completed AE Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Design Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, john.p.bishop1@navy.mil.

Offerors are highly encouraged to provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Additionally, Offerors are highly encouraged to address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total. Information provided beyond this page limit will not be considered.

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.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources.

The Government will consider the recency 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 team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Factor 4 – 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. 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’ [2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020] 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’ [2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020] 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 adequate 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) might 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 adequate 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) might 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 elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

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

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

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

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.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

A. Technical Solution

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP.

Narratives must include, but are not limited to, the following for each of the hangar and parking structure:

- interior circulation/ space adjacencies and square footage.

- construction including exterior facade and AFFF.

- special security requirements (hangar only).

- Site layout including a description of the building orientations, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), emergency vehicle access, and ATFP standoff distances. Also include in the narrative a description of the general concept proposed to meet low impact development (LID).

Narratives shall not exceed eight (8) double-sided pages (or sixteen (16) single-sided pages). Two (2) conceptual site drawings (site plans) (not included in the page limitation) must be provided to supplement the narrative, one for the Hangar site and one for the parking garage site.

B. Management Approach and Schedule

Provide a Narrative Work Plan and a CPM Project Schedule to describe your approach to managing the subject project to ensure adherence to schedule and construction sequencing as required in the RFP.

Narrative Work Plan The Narrative work plan shall address major elements of work and demonstrate understanding of the scope, major milestones, technical complexities, and the sequenced construction schedule needed to coordinate the Aircraft Hangar and Parking Garage Projects as detailed in the solicitation. Identify activities that may affect the project timeline, including other/off site work activities.

The Narrative shall not exceed five (5) double-sided (or ten (10) single-sided) 8-1/2” x 11” pages.

Project Schedule The Project Schedule must provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule.

The CPM Schedule should clearly identify the tasks on the Critical Path.

Provide all Project Schedule source files.

The CPM Schedule must be submitted on 11" x 17" pages to document the requested information.

Schedule shall not exceed 20 pages.

The Government will evaluate the specific elements below to determine the level of understanding of the requirements of the RFP.

Narrative Work Plan Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP. A narrative work plan that identifies areas of risk in logistics and resource management, and provide a comprehensive contingency plan that addresses mitigation of any identified risks with potential solutions, may be considered more favorable.

Project Schedule Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP. A Project Schedule that proposes a realistic contract duration shorter that the required duration indicated in the RFP may be considered more favorable, and if the offeror is the awardee, may be incorporated into the contract award at the Government’s discretion. A project Schedule that proposes contract durations longer than the RFP will be rated as UNACCEPTABLE.

Factor 6 – Energy Design and Reduction:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide the following information which describes how the project will meet or exceed the following sustainable design contract requirements.

(1) Energy Efficiency Narrative:

Provide a detailed narrative describing how the proposed solution will meet baseline ASHRAE 90.1-2013 (or more recent version). Also describe how the solution will provide at least a 30% energy reduction below the baseline ASHRAE 90.1, based on life cycle cost effectiveness.

To determine solution, use the ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G – Building Performance Rating Method, except replace the formula in G1.2 with the following:

Percentage improvement = 100 × ((Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads) − (Proposed building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)) / (Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)

List assumptions used to obtain the percent energy reduction.

Organize narrative in four parts: 1) Orientation, Configuration, and Shape; 2) Envelope properties (fenestration, solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC), wall and roof insulation values (U-values), window U-values); 3) Mechanical (HVAC, plumbing, and domestic hot water heating systems, including any solar hot water systems); and 4) Electrical Systems (lighting and control systems, including any interior and exterior lighting systems, renewable energy and control systems).

Where 30% reduction is not lifecycle cost effective, the offeror must provide highest percent energy reduction that is lifecycle cost effective and describe its findings.

Note: Building performance rating and percent energy reduction are calculated in terms of energy rather than energy cost.

Do not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages).

(b) Whole Building Energy Simulation:

The Whole Building Energy Solution requires the use of the following documents included in Part 6 of this RFP:

- Government Baseline Building Performance Rating

- Government Baseline Building Energy Model (input-output) schedules (If the process and receptacle loads are not given in the schedules, assume they are 25% of the total load.)

- Default simulation factors

- Utility Costs (energy rates) for project, based on local unburdened PWD rates

- “Whole Building Energy Simulation” templates

- “Performance Rating Method Compliance Reports”

Use the “Whole Building Energy Simulation” templates to demonstrate the percentage improvement over the “Proposed Building Performance Rating”. Receptacle and process loads are included in the “Whole Building Energy Simulation” as part of the building loads. Submit the Whole Building Energy Simulation in PDF electronic file format.

(ii) Basis of Government Evaluation:

1) Energy Efficiency Narrative and Solution: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed energy efficiency narrative and solution.

2) Whole Building Energy Simulation: The Government will evaluate the Whole Building Energy

Simulation to determine the validity of the design assumptions, thoroughness and accuracy of the Whole Building Energy Simulation, and the percent improvement of energy consumption reduction below the Government’s “Baseline Building Performance Rating”.

Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization:

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 D (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Attachment D shall be provided for each project submitted under Factor 2, Experience.