N44255-13-R-8002_Amendment_0001.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

Amendment 0001 is issued to:

1) Respond to PPIs. See N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log.

2) Revise Section 00100, Basis of Aw ard, B. Evaluation Factors for Aw ard(2)(b) Factor 2 - Experience and Factor 4 - Safety.

The proposal due date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Sep-2013

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 N44255-13-R-8002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Aug-2013

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

05-Sep-2013

CODE

NAVFAC NORTHWEST

1101 TAUTOG CIRCLE

SILVERDALE WA 98315-1101

N44255 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N44255-13-R-8002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers.

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 LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

4. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the up to six (6) technically acceptable proposals with the lowest evaluated prices. No more than six (6) awards will be made. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to award up to six contracts with only the minimum guarantee. The Government also reserves the right to award the seed project as task order 0001 at the time of the basic contract award or at a later date.

In order to permit efficient competition, the following methodology will be utilized. Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Government will then evaluate the technical factors of the ten (10) lowest priced proposals in accordance with the criteria for acceptability set forth in the solicitation. However, the Government, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology. If six (6) or more of those proposals are found to be technically acceptable, the Government will make award to those six (6) offerors with the lowest price. If not, groups of three

(3) proposals will continue to be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until up to six (6) offers are found to be technically acceptable. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purposed of establishing a competitive range.

5. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award.

An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award. If an offeror receives an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any non-price factor, no additional proposal evaluation will be performed. Accordingly, under this methodology, some of the technical factors of some of the evaluated proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Price (Seed Project) Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization

Subfactor 5.A – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns Subfactor 5.B – Small Business Participation

The distinction between experience and past performance is corporate 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.

a. If past performance, experience, or safety data is supplied for a firm that does not match the proposer’s CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the proposer MUST provide a detailed written explanation of how the past performance, experience and/or safety data is relevant. For example, if a proposal is from a newly formed subdivision of a parent company or is a new company formed by executives from another company and the offeror uses past performance and/or safety data from the parent company or another subdivision with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the offeror MUST demonstrate how the same policies and procedures, processes and management systems will be used in the newly formed firm and delineate why there is an expectation that the same high quality of past performance will be achieved. If experience is cited that was gained through another firm with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the proposal must clearly show how this experience is relevant to the offeror’s ability to perform the requirements of this contract. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of the parent or affiliate company will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Failure to provide an adequate connection or link, as described above, between the offeror and the submitted past performance, experience, or safety information could result in the finding of a deficiency, thereby making the offer ineligible for award without discussions.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror’s price proposal shall be separate from the technical proposal. Complete and submit the following:

(i) Cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including DUNS number

(ii) DD 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award Blocks 14 through 20c

(iii) Seed Project, Task Order N44255-13-R-8002/0001, SF 1442 Blocks 14 through 20c.

(iv) Bid Bond in the amount of 20% of the Seed Project, Task Order N44255-13-R-

8002/0001.

(v) Letter from the Offeror’s surety. The letter should verify the Offeror has a minimum of

$15,000,000 bonding capacity per project and provide the Offeror’s aggregate maximum bonding capacity.

(vi) Ensure the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications, including the supplemental certifications including in Section 00600, are current and posted in SAM.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the Seed Project, Task Order N44255-13-R-8002/0001, SF 1442, Block 17. 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.

Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness, and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal.

Evaluation will determine the Offeror’s comprehension of the requirements of the RFP as well as to assess the degree to which the proposed price accurately reflects proposed performance.

A price found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may negatively impact the Offeror’s ranking.

The Bid Bond will be evaluated for accuracy and completeness in accordance with FAR 28.101.

The letter from the bonding company will be evaluated to assess the risk of the Offeror listed in Block 14 of the DD1442 being able to provide sufficient bonding for both individual and multiple task orders during the life of this contract.

Representations and Certifications will be reviewed in SAM to ensure they are complete.

(b) Technical Factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(i) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction 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.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) including the organizational chart.

Offerors failing to provide the information requested will receive an unacceptable rating.

The information requested in item #ii below is not included in this page limitation.

(ii) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement or mentor-protégé agreement if applicable for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above.

Offerors failing to provide a signed copy of a joint venture agreement or mentor-protégé agreement if applicable will receive a rating of unacceptable.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror.

Factor 2 – Experience:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(i) Construction Experience:

Submit up to five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects. Relevant projects are those that are similar in size, scope, and complexity. For purposes of this evaluation, similar in size, scope, and complexity is further defined as:

Size: Similar in size are projects between $500,000 to $30 million. Two projects must be over $5M, and the majority of the work must include one or a combination of the following:

• pile driving

• marine/waterfront structural repairs

• waterfront utilities

Scope: Similar in scope are projects involving one or a combination of the following:

• pile driving

• marine/waterfront structural repairs

• waterfront utilities

Complexity: Similar in complexity is considered as managing projects with limited site access and lay-down area, compliance with complex environmental regulations, and work in a marine environment; at least one project must demonstrate and describe compliance with complex environmental regulations that were encountered during construction that may have been constraining and any actions that were taken by the Offeror to overcome such constraints.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this

RFP.

Offerors failing to provide relevant projects within the specified time frame demonstrating experience in the above will be rated unacceptable.

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 B) 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. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Joint Venture offers must include at least two relevant projects for each partner. If the Joint Venture includes more than two firms, the team's submission shall include at least one relevant project for each firm. Offeror will receive an unacceptable rating if the minimum number of projects for each firm is not submitted.

If in accordance with Section 00100 Basis of Award, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 1.a. an explanation is required for experience cited that was gained through another firm with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, an additional one page will be granted for the express purpose of showing how this experience is relevant to the Offeror’s ability to perform the requirements of this contract. This explanation shall be provided on the Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) Box 12.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five projects for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in factor 2 for construction experience. If there is not a completed CCASS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment C) for each project included in Factor 2. 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, Shannon Meland, shannon.meland@navy.mil.

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

Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total. Offerors who receive a less than Satisfactory rating for any project submitted in Factor 2 shall submit this narrative. Offerors who have a less than Satisfactory rating for any project submitted in Factor 2 and who do not provide this narrative will receive an unacceptable rating.

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 awards or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. More emphasis will be placed on more relevant projects. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government.

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 Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture 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.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors whose predominant (>50%) CCASS and PPQ ratings are less than Satisfactory will be rated Unacceptable.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Acceptable.

Factor 4 – Safety

(1) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the Past Performance Worksheet for Safety (Attachment D). The following data shall be completed on, or attached to the worksheet: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(i) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the current and five previous complete calendar years [2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008], submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a five year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances, including corrective actions taken, that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

Offerors failing to identify extenuating circumstances, including corrective actions taken, that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends will receive an unacceptable rating.

(ii) Occupational Safety and Heal Administration (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and OSHA Forms 300 and 300A:

For the current and five previous complete calendar years [2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008], submit your OSHA DART rate. The OSHA DART rate shall be calculated as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances, including corrective actions taken, that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

For the current and previous complete calendar years [2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008] submit OSHA Forms 300 and 300A. If you cannot submit OSHA Forms 300 and 300A affirmatively state so, and explain why.

Offerors failing to identify extenuating circumstances, including corrective actions taken, that affected the DART and upward or downward trends will receive an unacceptable rating.

(iii) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan and criteria that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two pages.

Offerors with no technical approach will receive an unacceptable rating.

(2) 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 Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement.

Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization

Factor 5 consists of two Subfactors, 5A, Past Performance in Utilizing Small Business Concerns, and 5B, Small Business Participation. The evaluation of Subfactors 5.A and 5.B are of equal importance to the determination of the Factor X Rating.

Definitions: “SB” as used herein, is intended to include Small Business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business concerns (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business concerns (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business concerns (HUBZone), Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (SDVOSB). All small business programs are self-certifying programs with the exception of HUBZone certifications, see HUBZone SB Certifications below. Small Business Program requirements and definitions may be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 19.

HUBZone SB Certifications: Offerors are reminded that HUBZone SB concerns must obtain formal certification from the Small Business Administration (SBA) if they expect to receive the evaluation benefits associated with the HUBZone SB programs either as a prime or subcontractor(s). For more information on the HUBZone SB certification requirements and available benefits, contact your local SBA representative. Certified HUBZone SB firms are listed on the System for Award Management (SAM) website at www.sam.gov. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to periodically check the SAM as certifications are subject to change.

Subfactor 5.A – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Proposals that do not include responses addressing ALL elements of the requirements stated below ((i) through (vii)) must include an explanation why that element is not addressed.

(i) Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s contracts referenced under Factor 3, Past Performance. Recently completed project evaluations are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project evaluations, interim ratings for projects that are 80% complete may be considered. If more than five evaluation ratings are provided, only the first five will be considered. In addition, the Government may consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources (such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support Systems (CCASS)), Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS)).

(ii) Provide information on national and industry-issued awards that offerors received for outstanding support to SB concerns within the past five (5) years. Include purpose, issuer, and date of award(s).

National and industry-issued awards received beyond five (5) years will not be considered.

(iii) Provide information on previous, existing, planned or pending mentor-protégé agreements (MPA) under any Federal Government or other program held within the last five years. Information should include, at a minimum, the members, objectives, period of performance, and major accomplishments during the MPA.

(iv) Provide information on past use of Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) organizations certified under the AbilityOne Program by the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) or the National Industry for the Blind (NIB). Information should include the contract type, type of work performed, period of performance, and number of employed severely handicapped persons.

(v) Provide small business subcontracting history. Large businesses with Federal contracting experience shall provide completed or most recently approved SF294s “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on all contracts referenced under Factor 3 Past Performance. Reports for recently completed projects are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project reports, interim reports may be considered if the project is at least 80% complete. If more than five (5) reports are provided, only the first five (5) will be considered. If goals were not met on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why. Newly established Large Businesses, or Large Businesses with no prior SF294/ISR history shall submit a subcontracting history on Attachment E, Small Business Past Performance.

(vi) Small Business proposers shall provide a subcontracting history on Attachment E, Small Business Past Performance.

(vii) If an Offeror is utilizing past performance information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the solicitation), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful participation of all members in the management of the subcontracting program/plan by identifying the personnel or resources from the member companies that will be dedicated to managing the plan, and an organization chart which demonstrates the reporting chain within the membership.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity, provide past performance information, elements (i) through (vii), for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program/plan.

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the proposer’s level of past performance in utilizing Small Business (SB) concerns, AbilityOne, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and other socio-economic programs, as defined in FAR Parts 26.1 and 26.2, in subcontracting, and in meeting established Small Business subcontracting goals.

Subfactor 5.B – Small Business Participation

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work you will 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., LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, etc.

If you are a Large Business, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for this project in the format provided in Attachment F to this factor, to include all information required in the attachment. If you are a Small Business, submit a subcontracting participation breakdown in the format provided in Attachment G to this factor. All proposers: To demonstrate commitment in using small business concerns, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan or subcontracting participation breakdown may list all subcontractors by name. If the proposed Small Business Subcontracting goals do not meet the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, include a detailed explanation describing the actions taken to arrive at that determination, along with an explanation for the goals that actually were proposed. For proposals submitted on design-build solicitations, the proposer must identify its designer/design team in its Subcontracting Plan or Small Business Participation Breakdown.

Firm commitments to subcontract to multiple companies: The Offeror may provide a demonstration of commitments in planned subcontracts by listing multiple names of companies that will be used to support specific small business category (i.e., SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB and SDVOSB).

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

(i) The extent to which the proposal demonstrates maximum practicable participation of SBs in terms of the total value of the acquisition, including options.

(ii) The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a commitment to use SB concerns that are specifically identified in the proposal, including but not limited to use of mentor protégé programs.

(iii) The extent to which the proposal demonstrates SB participation in a variety of industries expected during the performance of work.

(iv) The realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals.

The following will be evaluated on proposals submitted by Large Business firms:

(i) The extent to which the proposal provides Small Business Subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, and utilization of AbilityOne CRP organizations.

Proposals that provide goals exceeding the NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets may be rated higher. The proposed goals and NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracted values. The minimum NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are as follows:

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Small Business 66.54% 66.67% 66.81% 66.94% 67.07% HUBZone Small Business 8.76% 8.85% 8.94% 9.03% 9.12% Small Disadvantaged Business 16.93% 17.10% 17.27% 17.44% 17.62% Women-Owned Small Business 15% 15.15% 15.30% 15.45% 15.61%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB 3% 3.03% 3.06% 3.09% 3.12%

(ii) The extent to which the proposer’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan establishes reasonable efforts demonstrating the subcontracting targets can be met during the performance of the contract:

(End of Summary of Changes)