N44255-15-R-0004_Amendment_0002.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 0002 is issued to:

1) Revise Section 00100, Basis of Aw ard, 3. Phase One Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor, Factor 2 - Experience.

2) Revise the relative order of importance for Phase One in Section 00100, Basis of Aw ard, 2. Evaluation Factors for Aw ard.

3) Revise Section 00100, Basis of Aw ard, 4. Phase Tw o Basis of Aw ard and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor, Price.

4) Answ er PPIs. See N44255-15-R-0004 PPI Log.

Changes to N44255-15-R-0004 are highlighted in yellow .

The proposal due date of 27 August 2015 is 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 22-Jul-2015

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 N44255-15-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Jul-2015

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

22-Jul-2015

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:

N44255-15-R-0004

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 OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1. BASIS OF 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 proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals 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. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

5. The Government reserves the right to award only the initial seed project identified in the RFP as a single-action contract. Provided the Government evaluation determines a sufficient number of qualified proposals are received, the Government anticipates awarding up to eight IDIQ contracts to the offerors found to offer the best value. The offeror presenting the best value will receive award of an IDIQ contract and Task Order 0001 for the seed project, which will meet or exceed the minimum guarantee. Any additional selected offerors will receive an IDIQ contract award and Task Order 0001 in the amount of $25,000 to cover the minimum guarantee. Offerors are also advised that the Government reserves the right to award all contracts with only the minimum guarantees.

6. Evaluation methods for subsequent MACC projects will be delineated in future respective Task Order

RFPs. The Government makes no representation as to the number of task orders or the actual amount of work to be ordered. Contract awardees are not guaranteed work in excess of the minimum guarantee. Subsequent Task Order evaluation methods may include trade off or low price technically acceptable (LPTA) selection procedures. Each contract awardee shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each Task Order award, except under those circumstances described in FAR 16.505(b)(2).

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Phase One:

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

The distinction between corporate 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.

Phase Two:

Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy and Sustainable Design

Note 1: If the offeror presents experience, past performance and/or safety data for an entity with a different CAGE Code or DUNS number, the information will NOT be considered unless the offeror establishes a nexus or connection between itself and the other entity. The offeror MUST clearly explain how the resources of the other entity will be provided and relied upon for contract performance such that the other entity will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. This explanation will be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) and should be included under Factor 2, Experience. Failure to prove an adequate nexus between the offeror and the entity with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS number 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 technical approach, experience, past performance, technical solution, and safety information rests with the offeror.

Note 3: The non-price proposal shall be separate from the price proposal. See Section 00100, Instructions to Offerors 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 a lower rating.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is as follows:

Phase One:

For the purposes of determining the offeror who will move on to Phase Two, the factors will be evaluated as follows:

Phase One will consider Factors 1, 2, and 3

Factor 1, Technical Approach, will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase Two. Factors 2 and 3 are of equal importance to each other.

Following the review, evaluation, and rating of Phase One proposals, the Government intends to select the highest rated Offerors to receive the technical requirements package to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation process.

Offerors should be advised the determination of prequalified firms may be made without communications or clarifications or any contact concerning the prequalification submission received. Only Offerors receiving a technical rating of “Acceptable” in Factor 1, an overall combined rating of “Acceptable” or higher for Factors 1 and 2, and a confidence assessment rating of “Unknown,” “Satisfactory,” or higher for Factor 3 during Phase One, and which are determined as being among the highest rated Offerors will be eligible to participate in the Phase Two process of this solicitation. Offerors determined eligible to participate in Phase Two will receive the technical requirements package containing Factors 4, 5, 6 and price related requirements. A maximum number of approximately 15 Offerors will be selected to submit Phase Two proposals.

Phase Two:

Phase Two will consider Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and price

The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, and

6) are approximately equal in importance to each other and, when combined are approximately equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 3). 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.

3. Phase One Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

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

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

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA) as applicable for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, or mentor protégé member).

(b) 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. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

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

Similar in size: Construction project between $7,500,000 to $40,000,000.

One construction project must be greater than $15,000,000.

Similar in scope: New construction, repair, alteration, or renovation by design-build or design-bid-build of administrative facilities, housing facilities, child care centers, recreation/fitness centers, retail complexes, manufacturing and industrial facilities, communication facilities, special access program facilities (SAPF) or sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIF’s), aviation facilities (i.e. hangars, control towers, etc.), or other similar facilities.

Similar in complexity: Involving multiple trades, working in areas with limited access, constructing various projects simultaneously, or managing multiple work sites

At least one project shall demonstrate the ability to successfully manage multiple work sites simultaneously (separate and distinct) under a single project.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this

RFP.

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 use of the attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé entity. If the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé members. At least one relevant project shall be submitted for each joint venture, partnership or mentor protégé member. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

Experience of a subcontractor will not be considered.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as

Similar in size: Construction project between $7,500,000 to $40,000,000.

One construction project must be greater than $15,000,000.

Similar in scope: New construction, repair, alteration, or renovation by design-build or design-bid-build of administrative facilities, housing facilities, child care centers, recreation/fitness centers, retail complexes, manufacturing and industrial facilities, communication facilities, special access program facilities (SAPF) or sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIF’s), aviation facilities (i.e. hangars, control towers, etc.), or other similar facilities.

Similar in complexity: Involving multiple trades, working in areas with limited access, or designing various projects simultaneously.

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The use of the attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process. Also, the description should address features detailing how the work was completed in accordance with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, or approved mentor protégé agreement as applicable and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor, see Note 1.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as 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 and five for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) 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 a completed AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CCASS or ACASS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment C.1 and C.2) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, 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 as they relate to this solicitation. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

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

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) 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, joint venture, or mentor protégé 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 lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown Confidence rating.

4. Phase Two - Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

Factor 4 – Safety:

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work and the Offeror’s method for qualifying, evaluating, selecting all tiers of sub-contractors. The narrative shall include:

(1) Safety program performance, including, but not limited to the OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) rate and OSHA Days Away, Restricted Duty or Transferred (DART) rates for the most recent five (5) complete calendar years. The narrative shall address any observed trend, serious mishaps, including fatalities, and any mitigating circumstances associated with the mishap rates. If negative trends are noted, the narrative shall address corrective measures taken to prevent repeat occurrences of similar mishaps.

(2) Methodology used in those projects identified in the past performance evaluation factor to qualify, evaluate, select, and oversee sub-contractors based on their safety performance, such as OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) rates, and OSHA Days Away, Restricted Duty or Transferred (DART) rates.

(3) Methodology intended to be used to qualify, evaluate, select, and oversee subcontractors for this project, highlighting what specific management practices will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than 2.0.

The narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) in total. (For a partnership, joint venture, or mentor protégé, the mishap rates are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership, joint venture, or mentor protégé; however, only one safety narrative is required. Safety narratives for joint ventures may be up to two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.)

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 its self-performed work and the work of its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety management system, safety performance record, and the Offeror’s methodology of qualifying, evaluating, selecting and overseeing its subcontractors. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety will include, but are not limited to:

OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS) 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 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 and the specific management practices that will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than 2.0. Those Offerors who demonstrate an effective safety management system, as indicated by the required information provided in their safety narrative may be considered more favorably in the evaluation.

Offeror’s OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk TRC Very High Greater than 4.0

High From 2.75 to 4.0

Moderate From 1.25 to 2.75

Low From 0.50 to 1.25

Very Low Less than 0.50

Offeror’s DART rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Very High Greater than 2.0

High From 1.0 to 2.0

Moderate From 0.50 to 0.99

Low From 0.25 to 0.49

Very Low Less than 0.25

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

- Interior circulation/adjacencies

- Exterior façade describing how the proposed construction integrates with the surrounding area and existing base facilities design or architectural theme.

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

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages (or six (6) single-sided pages). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e. floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings (if included) considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

Factor 6 – Energy and Sustainable Design

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide the following information, which describes how the project will meet or exceed the following sustainable design contract requirements.

(1) EPAct 2005 Energy Efficiency Narrative:

Using the guidance outlined in Part 3 of this RFP, provide a detailed narrative to describe whether the proposed solution will meet or exceed the goal of a 30% energy reduction using the ASHRAE Std 90.1-2007, Appendix G, Building Performance Rating Method, excluding receptacle and process loads. Provide the proposed percent energy reduction. Provide the assumptions the Offeror will use to obtain a high-performance building, which will comply with these energy reduction goals. Describe the Offeror’s proposed building with regards to building orientation, shape, fenestration, solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC), wall and roof insulation values (U-values), HVAC systems, water heating systems, lighting systems, and control systems. Organize/divide the assumptions into four areas;

building orientation and configuration, building envelope, mechanical systems, and electrical systems. If the Offeror cannot achieve the 30% reduction within the budget identified, the Offeror shall state what percent energy reduction is proposed within their proposal. Do not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages). Note: Building performance rating and percent energy reduction are calculated in terms of energy rather than energy cost.

(1a) Whole Building Energy Simulation:

Provide a Whole Building Energy Simulation summary following the procedure outlined in LEED 2009, Credit EAc1 – Optimize Energy Performance, Option 1 – Whole Building Energy Simulation, except utilize the “Baseline Building Performance Rating” shown in the RFP, Part 6, to demonstrate the percentage improvement in the “Proposed Building Performance Rating”. Provide a completed Performance Rating Method Compliance Report, Table 3, page 279-283 in the LEED 2009 Reference guide for New Construction. Utilize the default simulation factors and energy rates included in the RFP, Part 6.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to the Energy and Sustainable Design Factor considering the proposed energy savings.

EPAct 2005 Energy Efficiency Narrative: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed energy budget reduction relative to EPAct 2005 energy efficiency goals, including evaluation of assumptions.

Whole Building Energy Simulation: The Government will evaluate the Whole Building Energy Simulation to determine the validity of the design assumptions, thoroughness of the Energy Simulation, and the percent improvement above the Government’s “Baseline Building Performance Rating”.

Price (Seed Project)

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

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

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

(3) Seed Project, Task Order N44255-15-R-0004/0001, SF 1442 Blocks 14 through 20c.

(4) Bid Bond in the amount of 20% of the Seed Project (Task Order N44255-15-R-0004/0001)

(5) Letter from the Offeror’s surety. The letter should verify the Offeror has a minimum of $30,000,000 bonding capacity per project and provide the Offeror’s aggregate maximum bonding capacity.

(6) Ensure the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications, including the supplemental certifications included in Section 00600, are current and posted in the System for Award Management (SAM).

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(2) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(3) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(4) Comparison of market survey results.

(5) Congruence between the technical and price proposals shall also be utilized to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price as well as potential performance risk.

The Government will evaluate the Seed Project price based on the total price, consisting of CLIN 0001.

Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness, realism, 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 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 the System for Award Management (SAM) to ensure they are complete.

(End of Summary of Changes)