N44255-15-R-8000-0004.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

Respond to PPI No. 0023 and extend the PPI due date to March 4, 2015. Continued on Page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Feb-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-8000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jan-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, 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 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

26-Feb-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-8000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

The purpose of Amendment 0004 is to:

1. Respond to Pre-Proposal Inquiry No. 0023.

2. Extend the due date for PPIs from February 25, 2015 to March 4, 2015. See conformed Section 00100, Number 1, Pre-Proposal Inquires.

3. All Other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The proposal due date IS NOT EXTENDED. Offerors are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this amendment in Block 19 of the SF 1442 submitted in response to the subject

RFP.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY RESPONSE:

INQUIRY 0023: Given that the site walk was held on Feb. 20 and the proposal due date is March 26 will the Government please extend the due dates for RFIs by one week in order for us to allow our subcontractors to thoroughly review the specifications and ask any RFIs that they may have as doing so would allow us to provide our best price to the Government?

RESPONSE: Yes, this amendment extends the PPI submittal date to March 4, 2015 See conformed Section 00100, Number 1, Pre-Proposal Inquiries submittal date from February 25, 2015 to March 4, 2015.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

1. Pre-Proposal Inquiries. Offerors who determine that the technical and/or contractual requirements of this RFP require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal shall submit all questions in writing. The pre-proposal inquiry format is provided in Section 00100 Attachment A, Pre Proposal Inquiry Form. Pre-Proposal Inquiries shall be submitted via email to patricia.l.kelly@navy.mil Pre-proposal inquiries will be accepted up to March 4, 2015.

2. Solicitation Information on NECO Website. The solicitation and all amendments will be available for viewing and downloading at hand ttps://www.neco.navy.mil and www.fbo.gov upon issuance. Prospective Offerors must register on the NECO website. This is the only method of distribution for the solicitation and amendments. It is the OFFEROR’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK THE NECO AND/OR FBO WEBSITES PERIODICALLY FOR ANY AMENDMENTS ISSUED TO THE SOLICITATION. The Plan Holders List is available at the NECO website.

3. Proposal Format and Due Date. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as follows and furnished as stated herein:

3.1 Proposal Due Date, Submission Instructions, and Format. Offerors shall submit proposals in hard copy as follows:

Offerors shall affix their names and return addresses to the upper left corner of the proposal packages. Each package shall include the solicitation number and clearly identify the contents (i.e., “N44255-15-R-8000 ~ PROPOSAL – (Insert Company Name)”), and must be sealed.

Submit proposals to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest Attn: Ms. Patty Kelly 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 313 Silverdale, WA 98315-1101

Email or Facsimile transmissions of proposals, acknowledgement of amendments or modifications of proposals is NOT allowed.

If the Offeror is mailing its proposal, mail to the address above. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the package is delivered prior to the time specified. If the Offeror has access to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor and is hand delivering its proposal to NAVFAC Northwest building 1101, please call Patty Kelly at (360) 396-0230 to make arrangements prior to your arrival, to be met at the lobby. Contractors shall not arrive at the building unannounced.

PLEASE NOTE: The address listed above is within a controlled area (badge access). Allow yourself ample time for parking and security delays.

For Offerors who are hand-delivering its proposal and have not made prior arrangements, a NAVFAC Northwest employee will be at Pass & ID, Building 1035, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, one hour prior to the proposal submittal deadline, and will remain there until the proposal submittal deadline.

Whenever required by the factors, use the factor mandated attachments. For narratives aside from the required forms, the paper dimension shall be 8 ½ x 11”. The font size shall be no smaller than 11 pitch. Each copy of the proposal shall be securely fastened/ bound. Tab and label all sections and attachments. Provide a table of contents.

For recycling purposes, a soft cover or title sheet is sufficient.

- Technical Proposal: one (1) original with original signature and date, two (2) additional hardcopies copies, and one (1) copy on CD, of Factors 1, 2, and 3.

- Price Proposal: one (1) original with original signature and date, one (1) additional hardcopy.

- The original proposals shall be identified as “Original” on the cover. See Proposal submission requirements for additional details.

CLOSING DATE AND LATE SUBMISSIONS. The closing date and time for receipt of Proposals shall be as follows:

Proposals shall be received no later than 10:00 a.m. local time on March 26, 2015. NO EMAIL or

FACSIMILE PROPOSALS WILL BE ALLOWED.

3.2 A cover letter shall accompany the technical and price proposals and shall include:

1. The solicitation number;

2. The names, addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address of the Offeror;

3. Names, titles, phone numbers, facsimiles numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation, and;

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal;

5. DUNS # as required by FAR 52.204-6;

6. Tax ID Number; and

7. Acknowledgement of all amendments.

4. 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 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 the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. 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 offers 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 the number of proposals to be evaluated is limited, technical proposals shall be provided to the evaluators without any identification of prices or any rank order of prices. If no proposals are found to be technically acceptable within the first group of proposals, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. 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 purposes of establishing a competitive range. At no time during the technical evaluation will the SSEB be made aware of the Offeror’s 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 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.

4.1 Evaluation Factors for Award

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

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Safety

2. The distinction between experience and past performance is 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.

4.2 Evaluation:

(a) Price:

(1) Submittal Requirements:

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

ii. Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) – Blocks 14 through 20c completed;

iii.Complete Representations and Certifications in the RFP; including the supplemental certifications included in Section 00600, and ensure SAM is updated or current;

iv.Completed Section 00010, Schedule of Prices for CLINs 0001 -0004 shall be the entire work complete and in accordance with the solicitation; and

v. Bid Bond in accordance with FAR 52.228-1; and vi.Acknowledgement of all amendments.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government intends to evaluate price in accordance with the procedure of DFAR clause 252.236-7007, entitled “Additive or Deductive Items (DEC 1991)”. 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; and iv.Comparison of market survey results.

Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404. The total evaluated price will determine the Offeror’s comprehension of the requirements of the RFP and 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. Offers that provide prices greater than the maximum funding limit (MFL) may be rejected. Maximum funding limitation is $1,725,000.

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

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

(b) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

Size: Projects having a minimum cost of $1 million.

Scope: Projects involving one or a combination of the following:

1. Building additions with greater than 1,000 square feet with steel framing.

2. Building renovations greater than 2,000 square feet.

3. Partial wall demolition

Complexity: Projects involving one or a combination of the following:

1. Building renovation and addition of a facility/building in a single project

2. Compliance with complex environmental regulations

3. Managing projects with limited site access.

4. Managing projects with security requirements.

i. Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be substantially complete within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

ii. 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 for evaluation; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

iii. 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).

iv. 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).

v. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered. If the Offeror is a joint venture with no combined experience, at least one project from each member shall be submitted.

vi. The Offeror may submit relevant experience from a subcontractor or any other entity they plan to use that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. A minimum of two projects must be submitted by the Offeror (matching the DUNS number on the Cover Letter).

vii. If an Offeror is utilizing experience as described in item v. and vi., information of JV partner, subcontractor, or any other entity whose (name, DUNS, and/or address is not exactly as stated on the Cover Letter), they plan to use that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, the proposal shall include the following information in Box 12 of attachment B:

o The proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the JV partner, subcontractor, or any other entity whose (name, DUNS, and/or address is not exactly as stated on the Cover Letter), will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the past performance information of the JV partner, subcontractor, or any other entity to be considered.

o The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that the JV partner, subcontractor, or any other entity whose (name, DUNS, and/or address is not exactly as stated on the Cover Letter), commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of subcontractor, or any other entity whose (name, DUNS, and/or address is not exactly as stated on the Cover Letter), member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project.

o The proposal shall also describe specific roles of JV partner, subcontractor, or any other entity whose (name, DUNS, and/or address is not exactly as stated on the Cover Letter), in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract.

o In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement(MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, sibling company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

o Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the project being considered not relevant and may result in an Unacceptable rating.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The requirement for acceptability will be based upon the projects submitted by the Offeror in its proposal.

Size must be demonstrated on each project to be considered relevant. At least one of the three scope elements shall be demonstrated for a project to be considered relevant. Overall, a minimum of two scope elements and two complexities must be demonstrated within the submitted projects.

(2) Factor 2 – Past Performance:

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 1. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CCASS EVALUATION then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment C) for each project included in Factor 1. 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 SHOULD 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, Patty Kelly, patricia.l.kelly@navy.mil

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – 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.

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. 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.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

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.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(3) Factor 3 – Safety

The Offeror shall submit the Past Performance Worksheet for Safety (Attachment D). (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. TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

(1) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate:

For the five (5) [2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009] previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA TRC Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC Rate data should be addressed as part of this element.

OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

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

For the five (5) [2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009] previous complete calendar years, 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. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data should be addressed as part of this element. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to qualify, evaluate, select and oversee its potential subcontractors.

The Safety narrative shall be limited to one page. Information in excess of one page will not be considered.

Offerors must submit both (1) a plan to include the safety performance of subcontractors in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and (2) a plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, 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 3.0. Offerors who fail to submit either of these will be rated

UNACCEPTABLE.

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has an acceptable safety record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record as evidenced by the TRC and DART rates, if the Offeror’s plan includes safety in the evaluation and selection of subcontractors, and if the narrative includes a plan to monitor the safety performance of subcontractors during performance. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

(1) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate:

The Government will evaluate the OSHA TRC Rate to determine if the Offeror’s OSHA TRC rate is above 4.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(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’s OSHA DART rate is above 3.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine if subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the qualification, evaluation, selection, of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project, and both the plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, 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 3.0. Offerors who fail to address either of these items (i.e. whether the safety performance of subcontractors will be evaluated in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and whether the safety of those subcontractors will be monitored during contract performance) will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

5. Responsibility Determination Information Submission

A. Additional Methods of Evaluation

1. In accordance with FAR 9.104 and DFARS 209.104, the Government will use, but is not limited to, the following sources of information to support a determination that a prospective Offeror meets the general and applicable special standards of responsibility:

i. System for Award Management (SAM)

ii. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) 100 Website.

iii. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Website.

iv. State databases.

6. Definitions A supplemental list of definitions applicable to this solicitation is provided as Attachment E.

7. Pre-Proposal Conference – A pre-proposal conference and site visit will be scheduled. See Section 00100 FAR Clause 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction) (FEB 1995) – Alternate I (FEB 1995) for specific site visit information.

EXHIBITS FOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED AS SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS

ON THE NAVY ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ONLINE (NECO) WEBSITE

AT https://www.neco.navy.mil/

V. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Pre-Proposal Inquiry Form

Attachment B – Construction Experience Project Data Sheet

Attachment C – Past Performance Questionnaire, Construction Projects

Attachment D – Past Performance Worksheet for Safety

Attachment E – Definitions

(End of Summary of Changes)