Amendment 0010 _N4008524R2532.pdf

ACQR6022821

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

This Amendment is issued to provide responses to Pre-proposal Inquiries (PPIs), resubmit Attachment J-0401000 -02 - Post Manning Requirements Summary, incorporate a revise Section M.2, current Wage Determinations, and extend the proposal due date to 11 Feb 2025 @2:00pm vice 30 Jan 2025. See Continuation sheet(s), and separately attached documents.

All other Terms and Conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jan-2025

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 N4008524R2532

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Sep-2024

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

24-Jan-2025

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:

N4008524R2532

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 0010 PPI RESPONSES

24 Jan 2025

RFP: REGIONAL ARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES AT NORFOLK NAVAL

SHIPYARD PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA; NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY PHILADELPHIA,

PENNSYLVANIA; LAFAYETTE RIVER ANNEX, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA; CRANEY

ISLAND FUEL TERMINAL, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA; USS CONSTITUTION LOCATED

IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; AND NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE (COLTS

NECK), NEW JERSEY.

Pre-proposal Inquiries (PPI) Questions & Answers

Question 66: On pages 54 and 55 of the RFP document, under (c) Requirements, “the Contractor shall provide access to its facilities, systems, and personnel necessary for the Government to conduct a Medium or High NIST SP800-171 DoD Assessment”. What is the timeframe for these assessments to be conducted?

Answer 66: The timeframe will be decided upon after contract award, and upon discussion with the contractor and the Government.

Question 92: Section L.5 says price proposals, JV agreements, CPARS for Factor 2 are not included in page limitations. Please confirm that tables of contents, glossaries, cover page/title page, Attachment E are not included in page limitations.

Answer 92: See Amendment 0006 for a revised Section L.5 Content of Proposal which states “The following are not included in the 100-page limitation: Price proposals, JV Agreements, Teaming Agreements, Letters of Commitment, CPARS projects submitted under Factor 2, Corporate Experience, and PPQs.”

Additionally, Attachment E is no longer required. See Amendment 0010, for a revised Section M. M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, for a revised Section M.2(2)(b)(i)b.

Question 129: Factor 2, Corporate Experience states, “The Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider information submitted via any other medium” and says that Offerors are to demonstrate in the proposal how our parent or affiliate will contribute to the contract. Please clarify whether the Government will allow Offerors to provide a Corporate Experience/Affiliate discussion in Factor 2 and clarify how many pages are allowed for this discussion.

Answer 129: The paragraph in Factor 2 beginning with “The attached Corporate Experience Data Sheet (Attachment C)…” is specific to the contract information required to be included in the Corporate Experience Data Sheet. The requirements and restrictions in that paragraph are not applicable to the paragraph in Factor 2 beginning with “If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent /LLC/LTD member companies.” Other than the overall 100-page limit for the non-cost/price proposal, there is no additional page limitation associated with the paragraph in Factor 2 beginning with “If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent /LLC/LTD member companies.

Question 172: The solicitation references Attachment E, but it does not appear to be included in the provided documents. Could the agency clarify the purpose and contents of Attachment E and provide it for review?

Answer 172. See Amendment 0006 for a revised L.5 Content of Proposal: L.5.a. Attachment E is no longer required.

Question 173: The solicitation mentions the Corporate Experience Data Sheet (Attachment C) as mandatory; however, this attachment is not included in the provided documents. Could the agency provide the Corporate Experience Data Sheet or specify where it can be accessed?

Answer 173. See Amendment 0004 Attachments, for a revised J-0200000-06 -. Corporate Experience Data Sheet.

Question 174: In Section M.2(b) of the solicitation under the Workforce Management heading, points (7) and (9) appear to be very similar in their requirements. To avoid redundancy, would the agency consider excluding one of these points from the response requirements?

Answer 174. See Amendment 0010, Section M. M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, for a revised Section M.2(2)(b)(i)b.

Question 175: Can the agency clarify how the total contract price is to be calculated based on the CLINs and ELINs provided in the solicitation?

Answer 175. The RFP Section M, BASIS FOR AWARD, M.2, Section 2 provides information on how the Government will evaluate the proposed price and what is considered the total price. The total for each CLIN is the sum of all the ELINs included under that CLIN. For example, the total price for CLIN 0001 is the sum of ELINs A001

(A001AA, A001AA, A001AB, A001AB, A001AC, A001AC, A001AD, A001AD, A001AE,

A001AE, A001AF, A001AF) and A002 (A002AA).

Question 176: Are there specific pricing assumptions required when submitting proposals for recurring and non-recurring work?

Answer 176: It is the Offeror’s business decision on how to include and account for different costs associated with this requirement. Please note Section B, B.3 Minimum Guarantee states “The Recurring Price portion of the base year only is the minimum guarantee for this contract. Recurring work (CLINS 0001, 0003, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0011) is considered guaranteed work as long as the corresponding option period is exercised. Non- Recurring work (CLINS 0002, 0004, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012) is not guaranteed and ordered only as needed as long as the corresponding option period is exercise.

Question 177: How should contractors incorporate Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) wage rates and fringe benefits into their pricing?

Answer 177. See Answer #176, and FAR 52.222-41 and FAR Subpart 22.10- Service Contract Labor Standards.

Question 178: Will the Government provide updated wage determinations for each option year, and how will price adjustments be managed?

Answer 178: In accordance with Service Contract Labor Standards, the Contracting officer shall incorporate the most current, applicable Wage Determination into each modification to exercise an option. Price adjustments will be managed in accordance with FAR 52.222- 43(f) - Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts).

Question 179: What specific criteria will be used to evaluate the price proposals? Is there a weighting system between price and non-price factors?

Answer 179: See RFP Amendment 0006, for a revised Section L, and Amendment 0010 for a revised Section M.

Question 180: The solicitation mentions a minimum guarantee for the base year. Could the agency confirm the monetary value of this guarantee?

Answer 180: See RFP Section B, B.3 Minimum Guarantee. The monetary value of the guarantee is the awarded price for the base period Recurring Work ELINs.

Question 181: Is there a cap on the overall not-to-exceed (NTE) amount for combined recurring and non-recurring services?

Answer 181: See Section B, paragraph B.12 and Section H, paragraph H.2.

Question 182: Are contractors permitted to include contingencies in their pricing to account for potential wage increases or unforeseen costs?

Answer 182: See Section B, paragraph B.6 which specifically states, “The contractor warrants, by submission of his proposal, that the price does not include any contingency for future Service Contract Act related wage increases.”: It is the Offeror’s business decision on how to include and account for different costs associated with this requirement.

Question 183: For non-recurring work items ordered via FedMall, will there be any additional reporting or tracking costs that contractors need to account for?

Answer 183: See RFP Section H.3 FEDMALL.

Question 184: Are there any pricing adjustments required based on Amendment 0009 (referenced in the uploaded Excel document)? If so, can the agency specify these adjustments?

Answer 184: See Amendment 0009. Offerors are to treat the revised Attachment J-0200000- 05 ELINs as if it were the original spreadsheet. All versions of Attachment J-0200000-05 prior to Amendment 0009 are null and void.

Question 185: Will the agency provide an updated Exhibit Line Item (ELIN) breakdown reflecting the changes outlined in the amendment?

Answer 185: See Answer #184.

Question 186: Are there location-specific cost considerations that contractors need to address for services across the specified installations?

Answer 186: See Amendment 0009 for a revised Attachment J-0401000-10- Uniforms, incorporated under Annex 0401000 J; also see Annex 0200000 C, Spec Item 2.8.2 - Vehicles.

It is the Offeror’s business decision on how to include and account for different costs associated with this requirement.

Question 187: Will the agency consider extending the proposal submission deadline to ensure adequate time for completion?

Answer 187: Per Amendment 0010 the proposal due date has been extended to Tuesday, 11 February 2025 @2:00pm Est.

Question 188: Could the agency clarify the requirements and procedure for submitting the VETS-4212 report? What steps should offerors take if they are unsure whether they are required to file this report?

Answer 188: Refer to the Department of Labor VETS-4212 Federal Contractor Reporting website for the requirements and procedure for submitting the VETS-4212 report.

Question 189: Per Amendment 9 answers (52b), it is our understanding that ALL incumbent staff will need to be completely retrained. We assume this means incumbent personnel do not currently meet training requirements per the PWS. The impact of having to retrain all incumbent staff will have a significant price increase for all offerors, as well as introduce schedule risks. It also impacts greatly proposal development efforts that cannot be accomplished in the short extension granted. Again, incumbent team has had 4 months of lead time in preparation for this effort, as the Gov't. only provided seniority lists in Amendment 9. The information provided in Amendment 9 causes significant pricing adjustments to account for non-productive training labor for the entire workforce, significant revisions to phase in planning to ensure training can be accomplished without having a disruptive impact on ongoing security services by the incumbent, and additional the required resourcing of training personnel and training space. We therefore request a due date extension of at least 10-days.

Answer 189: See Answer 187

Question 190: Document J-0401000-02 is referenced in multiple locations within the attachments for solicitation N4008524R2532. However, I have been unable to locate it among the provided materials. I would greatly appreciate it if you could share this document with me at your earliest convenience.

Answer 190: See Amendment 0010 for Attachment 0401000-02 -Post Manning Requirements Summary. This attachment remains the same as was posted with Amendment 0009. Reposting for anyone having difficulties opening the document incorporated.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL DUE DATE

Proposals are due on 11 February 2025 by 2:00 pm Local time (EST). Proposal delivery shall be in accordance with Section B.22.

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

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

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

5. Any proposal found to have a Deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the Deficiency is corrected through discussions. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-price 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 FOR AWARD:

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

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

NOTE: 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.

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 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:

(ii) 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:

(1) Completeness. All pricing information required by the solicitation has been provided, all mathematical 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.

(2) Reasonableness. Price analysis comparisons indicate the offered price to be fair and reasonable, balanced across option years, and balanced amongst all Recurring and Non-Recurring Exhibit Line items.

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

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

Factor 1, Technical/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 shall be included in the narrative, tabbed in the non-price/cost proposal and discussed separately. Your narrative shall be no more than fifteen (15) double-sided pages.

a. Phase-In Transition Plan. The phase-in transition period is 90 calendar days, per F.2 of the RFP. Describe what you will do to “start-up” performance in accordance with the contract requirements:

(1) Include a schedule of phase-in key events that starts on the first day of the transition period and goes to the 90th day. In addition to the key events, your schedule shall address the Section F Deliverables submission requirements.

(2) Provide a phase-in transition plan narrative that includes, but is not limited to:

a. The roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the phase-in period;

b. Your plan to complete personnel/staffing actions; and

c. Your plan to have on hand adequate equipment/material to begin services on the start date of the period of performance.

(3) Describe procedures for obtaining a state license in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey and/or provide copies of current licenses.

(4) Describe your methods for obtaining Facilities Security Clearance (FSC) and employee security clearance requirement. If your company already holds an FSC, please provide.

Note: The incumbent contractor shall tailor their Phase-in Transition Plan to address how they will successfully continue services while meeting new contract requirements.

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

(1) Describe the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), key personnel, administration, and subcontractors. Your description shall include the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. Your description shall also include succession plan for key personnel – temporary (up to six consecutive weeks), and permanent replacement (beyond to six consecutive weeks). Note: Proposed key personnel shall be compliant with Section C, Annex 0200000, Management and Administration, Spec Item 2.7.1. Key Personnel and its Sub-annexes.

(2) Describe your plan to recruit and maintain a qualified workforce.

(3) Describe your plan to manage competing priorities, including surges for non-recurring task orders at various locations in this contract, without adversely affecting recurring work.

(4) Describe your methods for meeting Psychological (MMPI-2 and CPI) requirements.

(5) Describe your methods for procuring compliant communications equipment.

(6) Describe your contingency plans for increased Force Protection Conditions, mass/unplanned labor absences due to severe weather and/or natural disasters. Demonstrate how these plans will preclude degradation to required security capability.

(7) Describe the work to be performed as the prime contractor (self-performed) as well as work to be performed by each subcontractor proposed. Offerors are advised they will be responsible for being compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, during contract performance.

(8) Describe the procedures for maintaining, storing, inventory, and receipt of weapons.

c. Quality Management. Provide a summary of your “Quality Management System” (QMS). Your summary shall be no more than six (6) single-sided pages (or three (3) double-sided pages). Your summary shall address the practices and resources you will use to ensure full compliance with all Performance Objectives and Performance Standards as described in Section C, Annex 0200000 - Management and Administration. Additionally, your summary shall address your plan to audit, surveil, and inspect work performance and your strategy for taking corrective action when necessary.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

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

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

b. The proposal demonstrates a 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 management/technical approach with the capability to, at least, meet solicitation performance objectives and standards.

Factor 2, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information.

Submit a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) contracts that best demonstrate your relevant prime contractor experience and/or your corporate affiliate(s)’s relevant prime contractor experience that are similar in Size and Scope/Complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. Experience of the Offeror or its corporate affiliate(s) as a subcontractor will not be considered.

For the purposes of this evaluation, a relevant contract is further defined as follows:

Size: A contract with a yearly value of at least $8,000,000 for recurring services.

Scope/Complexity: Offeror must have provided all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, and equipment to provide armed guard services with similar requirements to the Performance Work Statement, such as: number of security guards/manning requirements; types and number of posts to be filled; other similar duties; and type of facility for which services were performed (e.g. military or Government facility).

The attached Corporate Experience Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit contract information. Offerors are only permitted to submit one contract per Corporate Experience Data Sheet. If the Offeror submits more than one contract on one Corporate Experience Data Sheet, the contract will be considered Not Relevant. 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 may be expanded;

however, total length for each Corporate Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages (or one double-sided page and one (1) single-sided page).

Contracts submitted for the Offeror shall be ongoing (having been performed for a period of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation) or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts with periods of performance beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or as base contracts with option periods. If the contract has option periods, state which contract period is in progress (e.g. base, 1st option, etc.) If the Corporate Experience Data Sheet does not clearly demonstrate that the contract meets the above requirements, the Government may deem the contract Not Relevant.

For all submitted contracts, the description of the contract shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the requirements of this RFP as it relates to Size and Scope/Complexity as defined above, or the Government may consider the contract not relevant. If an Offeror intends to submit recurring work completed/issued off an Indefinite Quantity/Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract as a qualifying contract, the Offeror is limited to submitting the IDIQ contract itself. The Government will not consider or evaluate any task orders whether submitted individually or collectively.

In accordance with 13 CFR 125.2(g), small business Offerors may utilize the prime contractor 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. In order to utilize the experience of a small business first-tier subcontractor(s), the offeror must specifically identify the proposed small business first tier contractor(s) in its proposal in accordance with this Factor. The Offeror or, if a small business Offeror, its small business first-tier subcontractor, shall have been the prime contractor on all submitted contracts. 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, the 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 experience if the small business Offeror cannot independently satisfy the experience requirement as defined above.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant experience should be submitted for contracts completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have shared experience, contracts may be submitted for each JV member. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV members may be rated lower (except for offerors covered by Mentor-Protégé Agreements approved by the Small Business Administration). If the Offeror is submitting experience for individual JV partners in which the company was a partner in a different JV entity, the Offeror must specifically address what portion of the work under the submitted contract was performed by the JV partner offering on this contract and demonstrate that the work meets the Size and Scope/Complexity as defined above, or the contract will not be considered relevant. Likewise, offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a contract where it performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how it work on that contract met Size and Scope/Complexity, as defined above. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) contracts combined.

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

Offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a contract where it performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how it works on that contract met Size and Scope/Complexity, as define above.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent /LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the experience information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g., personnel, management, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies shall commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal shall clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Failure to submit this information may result in a lower rating.

Vague commitments to support are likely insufficient; rather, they must demonstrate intent/manner of actual performance on the contract action being solicited.

The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team (e.g., partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) whose contracts are submitted to demonstrate relevant experience. The Government will not consider any contract submitted for Factor 2 if it was performed by a firm other than the Offeror (unless the experience falls under the parameters of 13 CFR 125.2(g)) and there is no supporting partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment.

(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 has demonstrated adequate experience by submitting at least one relevant contract of similar Size and Scope/Complexity, as defined above, on which the Offeror or its corporate affiliate was the prime contractor. The at least one relevant contract shall also meet the compliance requirements of this Factor as defined above.

Contracts completed by the Offeror, or, if permitted as discussed above, its corporate affiliate(s) (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, and parent companies) in any capacity other than as a prime contractor will be considered Not Relevant.

A Deficiency will be assigned to any Offeror that does not meet the minimum requirements of at least one (1) relevant contract as defined above and as such will receive a rating of UNACCEPTABLE. An Offeror with an UNACCEPTABLE rating in any Factor will not be eligible for award.

Factor 3, 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 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 rates 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.

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’ 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. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to six (6) single-sided pages or three (3) double-sided pages and shall address 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).

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 complete calendar 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. Consistent Low Risk or Very Low Risk DART rates may be considered a strength.

c. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) may be considered a strength.

d. 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.

e. 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 complete calendar 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. Consistent Low Risk or Very Low Risk TCR rates may be considered a strength.

c. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) may be considered a strength.

d. 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.

e. 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.

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 4, Past Performance:

For contracts submitted for Factor 2, Corporate Experience:

a. IF CPARS EVALUATIONS ARE AVAILABLE, THEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. The Offeror shall submit all CPARS evaluations available for that contract, not just the most recent.

b. IF THERE ARE NO CPARS EVALUATIONS, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in this solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each Factor 2 contract. 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 contract(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 contract(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, Susan C. Roberts, via email at susan.c.roberts4.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.

AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN CPARS EVALUATIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

The Offeror may 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 recommendation, 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 provided by the offeror, as solicited;

- Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition;

- Past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for the Offeror’s team members (e.g., partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal;

- Inquiries of owner representative(s);

- Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or Fee Determining Officials;

- 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 D.

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

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references’ unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on contracts submitted under Factor 2, Corporate Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Such explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on the quality of performance on the relevant contracts submitted under Factor 2, Corporate Experience, and past performance on other contracts currently documented in known sources.

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

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

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

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

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. More relevant past performance may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

(End of Summary of Changes)