N008523R2630 Amendment 0002.pdf

5911565

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

N40085-23-R-2630 Facility Investment Services for Electrical Maintenance and Repair Services in the Hampton Roads AOR

This amendment is issued to: Include site visit information, revise clauses, and to provide revised Section M - Basis for Aw ard.

SEE SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE(S)

Contract POC: Laura Thomas, laura.e.thomas21.civ@us.navy.mil, Tel: 757-341-1654

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Apr-2023

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 N4008523R2630

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Mar-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

03-Apr-2023

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:

N4008523R2630

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

This amendment is issued to: Include site visit information, revise clauses, and to provide revised Section M – Basis for Award.

1. For those planning to attend the site visit are requested to provide their names and company name to Laura Thomas at laura.e.thomas21.civ@us.navy.mil ahead of the site visit date and time.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions APR 1984 52.236-3 Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work APR 1984 52.236-5 Material and Workmanship APR 1984 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities NOV 1991 52.236-8 Other Contracts APR 1984 52.236-9 Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements

APR 1984

52.236-10 Operations and Storage Areas APR 1984 52.236-11 Use and Possession Prior to Completion APR 1984 52.236-12 Cleaning Up APR 1984 52.236-13 Accident Prevention NOV 1991 52.236-17 Layout of Work APR 1984

The following have been deleted:

52.246-20 Warranty Of Services MAY 2001

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Award

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal 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 are of equal value to each other and 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. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-cost/price factors and/or sub-factors will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the non-price factors, unless 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.

M.2 Evaluation Factors:

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

Factor 1 – Management Approach Factor 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization Factor Factor 5 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

NOTE: The distinction between experience and past performance is that 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 (technical factors 1, 2, 3, 4), are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment 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.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(1) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

(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.

Proposals will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

Completeness. All pricing information required by the solicitation has been provided, all mathematic computations are correct and the pricing application understood, prices are on an “all or none” basis, and failure to submit a price on an item or a number of items may cause this factor and the entire offer to be determined unacceptable.

Reasonableness. Price analysis comparisons indicate the offered price to be fair and reasonable, balanced across option years, and balanced between recurring and non-recurring items.

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

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Factor 1 Management Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly demonstrates its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Each of the topics below must be included in the narrative, tabbed in the non-price/cost proposal and discussed separately.

a. Phase-In Transition Plan. Describe what you will do to “start-up” for performance of this contract.

The phase in transition period is 30 days as per F.2 of the RFP. Include a schedule of key events, personnel actions/staffing, and responsibilities regarding employees at all levels to ensure fully compliant contract performance on the start date of the performance period. The schedule of key events shall include addressing the Section F Deliverables submission requirements.

b. Workforce Management. For each of the following, clearly:

(1) Describe the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, and subcontractors.

(2) Demonstrate your ability to provide and maintain a qualified workforce.

(3) Demonstrate your ability to manage competing priorities at various locations.

(4) Describe the work to be performed as the prime contractor as well as work to be performed by each subcontractor proposed. The work to be self-performed, subcontractors to be utilized, and their roles shall all be clearly identified. Offerors shall clearly state if it will self-perform 100% of the work as the prime.

c. Quality Management. Provide a two to five page (single-sided) summary of your “Quality

Management System” i.e. the Quality Processes (Practices, Resources and Activities) and minimum controls that will be used to ensure full compliance with all performance objectives and standards as described in (0200000-C) Management and Administration. Include the methodology to be implemented to accomplish the performance requirements and detail how the proposed approach will effectively achieve each performance objective and standard.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Management Approach factor shall be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

a. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the performance objectives and standards.

b. The proposal demonstrates a thorough plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work on the contract start date. In addition, the proposal clearly defines the controls and/or processes that are in place to ensure continuity of services.

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

(2) Factor 2, Recent/Relevant Experience of the Firm:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements detailed below. The offeror, or, if the Offeror is a small business, the Offeror’s small business first-tier subcontractor(s) that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, shall have been the prime contractor on the submitted relevant projects. An offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

For the purposes of this solicitation, a relevant project is further defined as follows:

Size: Electrical Maintenance and Repair Services with a yearly value of at least $3,500,000.

Scope: The Offeror must have provided all labor, management, supervision, tools, material, and equipment to design preventative maintenance programs and provide and provide Preventative Maintenance and

Repair of High Voltage Electrical Distribution equipment Inspection, Testing, Repair, or Replacement and Condition Reporting for the following types of equipment: High voltage and Medium Voltage Electrical breakers, Electrical Transformers, Electrical Disconnects, Electrical Switches and High Voltage Splices and other services as defined by the RFP. Equipment may be automatic, semi-automatic, or manual in operation.

Complexity: Offeror must have been responsible for responding simultaneously to requirements for several customers or installations and supporting annexes.

In accordance with 13 CFR 125.2(g), small business Offerors may utilize the experience of a small business first-tier subcontractor(s) to demonstrate experience under this evaluation factor if that small business Offeror cannot independently satisfy the experience requirement as defined above. Considering13 CFR 125.2(g), the Offeror or, for a small business Offeror, a small business first-tier subcontractor, shall have been the prime contractor on projects as defined above. The small business Offeror shall provide a letter of commitment from the first-tier small business subcontractor that expressly commits them for the entirety of the contract. The letter shall also provide an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the first-tier small business subcontractor will have in performance of the contract.

The Government notes that 13 CFR 125.2(g) is specific to only small business Offerors and named small business first-tier subcontractors. As such, a small business Offeror is not permitted to use the experience of a large business subcontractor or large business corporate affiliate in place of its own if the small business Offeror cannot independently satisfy the experience requirement as defined above. Large businesses shall have been the prime contractor on at least one (1) of the submitted relevant projects and may not utilize the experience of named small business first-tier subcontractors, large business subcontractors, or large business corporate affiliates in place of its own to meet this requirement.

An offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.

The attached Recent/Relevant Experience Form (Attachment J-0200000-12) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider information submitted via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one double-sided page (or two single-sided pages).

Projects submitted for the offeror shall be ongoing (having been performed for a period of at least one year) or completed within the past 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects with completion dates beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or as base contracts with option years. If the project has option periods, state which contract period is in progress (base, 1st option, etc.). If the dates of the project or completion date do not clearly demonstrate that the project meets the above requirements, the Government may deem the project not relevant.

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 as it relates to size, scope, and complexity as defined above, or the Government may deem the project not relevant.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. However, shared Joint Venture experience of the Offeror is not required in order to meet the requirements of the Factor. If the Offeror is submitting experience for individual JV partners in which the company was a partner in a different Joint Venture entity, the Offeror must specifically address what portion of the work under the submitted project was performed by the JV partner offering on this contract and demonstrate that the work meets the Size, Scope, and Complexity as defined above, or the project will not be considered relevant. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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

If permitted as discussed above, if an Offeror is utilizing the prime contractor experience of a corporate affiliate (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, predecessor companies, and parent companies) or first-tier small business subcontractor; the proposal shall include, on the corporate affiliate or first-tier small business subcontractor’s letterhead, a teaming agreement or letter of commitment. In order for the experience to be considered, the Offeror is also required to clearly demonstrate that the corporate affiliate(s) or first-tier small business subcontractor(s) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract by identifying the personnel or resources from the corporate affiliate(s) or first-tier small business subcontractor(s) that will be dedicated to the contract.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant corporate experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP as defined above. The minimum standard for this Factor has been met when the offeror, or, if the Offeror is a small business, the Offeror’s small business first-tier subcontractor(s) that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement has demonstrated adequate experience by submitting at least one relevant project of similar size, scope, and complexity as defined above on which it was the prime contractor.

Projects completed by the offeror, or, if permitted as discussed above, its corporate affiliates (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, and parent companies), or first-tier small business subcontractor(s) in any capacity other than as a prime contractor will be considered Not Relevant.

(1) Factor 3, Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ 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.

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ 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.

3. Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last five previous complete calendar years.

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

5. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

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

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

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk

(LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) 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. Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A form for each of the last five complete calendar years.

4. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered. 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.

5. 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.

(4) Factor 4, Small Business Utilization

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

1. Achievements: All offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two pages) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns to participate as subcontractors consistent with efficient contract performance. In support of narrative submissions:

a. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Recent/Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor in the format provided in Attachment J-0200000-13, Small Business Subcontracting Record.

b. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall also provide copies of the most current individual subcontracting reports (ISRs) associated with each project cited under the Corporate Experience Factor if a small business subcontracting plan was required by the contract.

If such projects were completed under specific task orders, provide ISRs for the overall contract.

For cited projects with state and local government agencies, provide similar subcontracting performance reports if required by the contracts. When not specifically addressed in the ISR or similar report, offerors shall provide explanations for all instances of failures to meet dollar or percentage goals in individual subcontracting plans.

Notes:

The Government reserves the right to consider achievements information on other recent, relevant projects from all available sources.

Offerors utilizing achievements information of team members or key subcontractors shall clearly demonstrate how these companies will have meaningful involvement in the management of the subcontracting program for this acquisition. If not, such achievement information will not be considered under this factor. If the offeror is a new joint venture, partnership or other entity consisting of more than one company, provide achievements information for each individual business entity that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program and clearly describe those responsibilities.

Failure to provide ISRs or any other requested information must be fully explained and may negatively impact your evaluation.

2. Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy including all data elements shown in Attachment J-0200000-14, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

a. Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition the extent of work the offeror will self-perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a joint venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member (e.g. small business, woman-owned small business, other than small business).

b. Include supplemental narratives (limited to five pages) to address other elements of the offeror’s strategy such as binding agreements covering post award roles for execution of the contract and specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small businesses opportunities to both participate in this acquisition and build capabilities to support future NAVFAC acquisitions.

c. The anticipated prime and first tier overall small business participation rate for this acquisition (i.e.

work to be performed by small businesses as the prime and/or subcontractors) is 20% of the contract value. Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business socioeconomic programs listed in Attachment I consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors shall explain in their participation and commitment strategies how proposed participation rates were established. The small business participation and commitment strategy must be in agreement with any required small business subcontracting plan and will be made a part of the contract upon award.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. The anticipated benefits of proposed initiatives and tools to enhance small business participation and capabilities will be considered. The Government will assess proposal realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition.

(5) Factor 5, Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of successful performance within the past five years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. The offeror shall be the prime contractor on a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to the RFP as defined in Factor 2, Recent/Relevant Experience.

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 2, Recent/ Relevant Experience. AN

OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment J-0200000-15), 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, Laura E. Thomas, via email at laura.e.thomas21.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five years (from the date of issuance of the solicitation), such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment J-0200000-15.

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

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

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

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

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

(End of Summary of Changes)