N44255-14-R-9010_Amendment_0005.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 0005 is issued to:

1) Correct the Attachment letter in Section 00100, Basis of Aw ard, B. Evaluation Factors for Aw ard, 2(b) Technical Factors, Factor 3 Past Performance.

The proposal due date of 6 August 2014 remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Jul-2014

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 N44255-14-R-9010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jun-2014

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

29-Jul-2014

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:

N44255-14-R-9010

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

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 lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

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 a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. 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 three

(3) 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 a proposal is found to be technically acceptable, the Government will make award to the offeror 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 an offer is found to be technically acceptable. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors and subfactors 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 purpose of establishing a competitive range. At no time during the technical evaluation will the SSEB be made aware of the offerors’ pricing, nor their particular price ranking.

4. 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 “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any subfactor results in the factor being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” and the overall non-price factors 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 Factor 1 – Management Approach Subfactor 1.A – Management Capabilities

Subfactor 1.B – Management Plan Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

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

(a) Price:

For the purposes of establishing price for this solicitation, the offeror shall provide a proposed coefficient for each SLIN description on the Attachment B, Coefficient Table. Failure to offer a coefficient for each SLIN will result in an offeror being ineligible for award. The coefficients will become part of the contract upon award and will be effective for the base year and all options.

On Attachment B, offerors are to multiply the proposed coefficients by their associated Means Value Work (Estimate) multiplier to arrive at an Estimated Amount for each SLIN. The Estimated Amounts for each SLIN are to be added together to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

Coefficient – The coefficient includes any and all costs above and beyond RS Means bare costs with the exception of specialized costs unique to a given Task Order project (e.g. specialized training, USL&H insurance, specific environmental permit, etc.). Specialized costs may be negotiated with each Task Order

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

(iii) Attachment B Coefficient Schedule

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

$1,000,000 bonding capacity per project and $8,000,000 aggregate.

(v) Bid Bond in the amount of 20% of the contract guaranteed minimum.

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

(vii) Signed copy of a joint venture agreement or mentor-protégé agreement if applicable.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the Total Evaluated Price of all SLINs found on Attachment B. 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.

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 15A of the SF1442 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:

NOTE 1: If experience, past performance, or safety data is supplied for a firm whose CAGE code and DUNS number does not match the CAGE code and DUNS number for the offeror, the offeror MUST provide a DETAILED written explanation of how the experience, past performance, and /or safety data is relevant.

The explanation will be limited to a total of two pages and should be included under Factor 2, Experience.

This explanation may be required if the offeror is a newly formed subdivision of a parent company, is a new joint venture or other merger arrangement of several firms, or is a new firm formed by executives from other firm(s), and the offeror provides experience, past performance, and/or safety data from any of the parent/other office/partner/subdivision/originating firm(s) with a different CAGE code and DUNS number.

The offeror’s proposal MUST clearly demonstrate how the same policies, procedures, processes, management, and similar systems will be used in the newly formed offeror’s firm and delineate why there is an expectation that the same high quality of experience, past performance, and/or safety will be achieved by the offeror in performance of the requirements of this contract. The proposal must clearly show how experience from any entity other than the offeror is relevant to the offer’s ability to perform. The relevant considerations are whether the resources of the parent/other office/partner/subdivision/originating firm(s) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the other firm(s) will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Failure to provide an adequate connection and link between the offeror and the submitted experience, past performance and or safety information from a parent/other office/partner/subdivision/originating firm(s) could result in the finding of a deficiency, thereby making the offeror ineligible for award without discussions.

Note 2: While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete experience, past performance, management, technical, management, safety, and small business utilization information rests with the offeror.

Note 3: The non-price proposal shall be separate from the price proposal. See Section 00100 for additional instructions, format, and submission quantities required for the proposal.

Note 4: The page limitation for each factor/subfactor is provided in the submission requirements for each factor found later in this section. Page limitations will be strictly enforced. Any pages submitted in excess of the page limitations will not be reviewed and any data or material they contain will not be considered. Specific submission items which are excluded from the page count are listed in each factor later in this section.

Note 5: Projects submitted for Factor 2, Experience, shall be the same projects submitted for Factor 3, Past Performance.

Note 6: Failure to meet solicitation submittal requirements may result in an unacceptable rating.

Factor 1, Management Approach

(1) Subfactor 1.A – Management Capabilities

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information. Failure to provide the requested information may result in an unacceptable rating.

a. Provide a workforce management plan narrative that describes:

i. The interrelationship of the off-site management team and on-site management team(s).

ii. Identify key personnel who will perform the following functions: project management, quality control management, and safety management.

iii. The approach to sub-contractor relationships. Include any pre-established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this solicitation, quantifying number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering.

iv. How you will ensure quality consistently across the team.

v. Quality control lines of authority between sub-contractors and prime.

vi. Quality control lines of authority between task order execution and contract management.

vii. Offerors shall demonstrate their experience in managing multiple projects (a minimum of five) simultaneously at different locations to include how the Offeror will provide labor, materials, equipment, subcontractors, and project management at various geographically dispersed locations.

viii. Offeror’s approach for working in areas of limited access, limited lay down space, and working around activities common to heavily industrial environments with minimal disruption.

The workforce management plan narrative shall be limited to four (4) double-sided pages (or eight (8) single-sided pages).

Offerors failing to provide the workforce management plan narrative or failing to address required elements of the workforce management plan may receive an unacceptable rating.

Offerors failing to demonstrate a quality control system that adequately demonstrates a sustainable and fully functioning structure with sustainable and measurable results may receive an unacceptable rating.

Offerors failing to demonstrate the ability to manage multiple projects (a minimum of five) simultaneously at different locations may receive an unacceptable rating.

b. Provide an organizational chart and narrative that clearly shows management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. Include job descriptions, names, titles, qualifications, responsibilities.

The organizational chart shall be limited to one (1) single-sided page. The page size shall be no larger than 11 x 17.

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

Offerors failing to provide an organizational chart or failing to show required elements of the organizational chart may receive an unacceptable rating.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate this factor based on the degree to which an offeror’s management capabilities meet the RFP requirements.

(2) Subfactor 1.B – Management Plan

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative that describes:

a. Discuss how the offeror will respond to proposed task orders that may have short notice site visits and/or response times for submitting proposals.

b. Discuss management familiarity and approach to joint scoping upcoming work with the Government, to include examples of any previous joint-scoping efforts if applicable.

c. Provide process for scheduling and discuss how offeror shall handle surges in work quantities.

The management plan narrative shall be limited to two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages).

Offerors failing to provide the management plan narrative or failing to address requirement elements of the workforce management plan may receive an unacceptable rating.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Subfactor based on the degree to which an offeror’s management plan meets the RFP requirements.

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 $2,000 to $1 million. One project shall be over $500,000.

Scope: Similar in scope are projects involving electrical, mechanical/HVAC, paving, roofing, vertical transportation equipment, dirt work, facility renovation, new construction, equipment repair and/or alteration, and construction-related activities. New construction would be projects that are not modernizations, rehabilitations, or any project that reconfigures an existing structure, road surface, equipment, etc. These would include building a building, cutting a road, installing a substation, making an addition to an existing building, etc.

One project shall be facility renovation or new construction.

One project shall include a majority of mechanical and/or electrical effort.

One project shall include a majority of roofing or paving effort.

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. This may include Situations where environmental compliance was required, and the processes developed to adhere to Federal, State, or local environmental regulations during construction, will be accepted as applicable experience.

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 an industrial environment.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed, or substantially complete, within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. The term “substantially complete” shall mean a construction project with construction of the facility/project more than 80% complete.

Offerors failing to provide relevant projects within the specified time frame demonstrating experience in the above may 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 C) 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).

Subcontractor experience will not be considered.

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

(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 D) 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 may 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/CPARS and PPQ ratings are less than Satisfactory may 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) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information: (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 three previous complete calendar years [2011, 2012, and 2013], submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period) using Attachment E Past Performance Worksheet for Safety. If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

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

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

For the three previous complete calendar years [2011, 2012, and 2013], submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration using Attachment E Past Performance Worksheet for Safety. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

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

(iii) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan 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.

Page Limitation: The safety narrative shall be limited to two (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

Offerors with no technical approach may 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 Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, 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

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)