N44255-18-R-5003_Amendment_0002.pdf

ACQR5338766

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

The purpose of this amendment to the SDVOSB/HUBZone MACC is to:

1.) Update Attachment A-1 NA44255-18-R-5003 PPI Log.

2.) Update factor 2 in section 00010 Basis of Aw ard B.3.b.(2)(a) to decrease the Large project requirement from $10 million to $7 million,allow letter of commitments for the design team, and edit Basis of Evaluation info.

3.) Update factor 2 in section 00010 Basis of Aw ard B.2. to include approximate number of Offerors moving on to Phase II.

4.) The Proposal due date/time has changed from 29-Apr-2019 02:00 PM to 03-May-2019 02:00 PM.

All changes made are highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Apr-2019

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 N4425518R5003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Mar-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Apr-2019

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:

N4425518R5003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Apr-2019 02:00 PM to 03-May-2019 02:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the Offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered.

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

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

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

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives shall 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.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Phase I:

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

Phase II:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy Design Reduction

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.

Note 1: A narrative, limited to one double-sided page (or two single-sided pages), shall be submitted under Factor 2, Experience, as further discussed below:

“Offeror” refers to the entity submitting the proposal, as determined by the name, address, Entity Identifier Number(EIN), and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code that appears in Block 14 of the SF 1442. If the Offeror’s proposal presents the experience, past performance, or safety data of any entity with an EIN or CAGE code that differs from that in the SF 1442, the information will not be considered unless the offeror establishes a basis for imputing the other entity's data to the offeror. The Government will not assume or independently investigate the existence and nature of a relationship between the offeror and any other entity that has a different EIN and CAGE code. The offeror must clearly explain why another entity's experience, past performance, or safety record is relevant to or indicative of the Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. A mere statement describing a corporate affiliation is insufficient; the offeror must also establish how the connection or nexus between it and the other entity relates to the Offeror’s qualifications. An Offeror’s failure to adequately justify a basis for crediting it with another entity's experience, past performance, or safety data could result in 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 the solicitation, Section 00100, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 2, for additional instructions, format, and submission quantities required for the proposal.

Note 4: The page limitation for each factor 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. For this Two-Phase DB procurement, Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase I and Factors 5-6 will be evaluated in Phase II. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase II. In making the best value award decision after Phase II, the government will consider Factors 2-6 and price. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is that technical Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6 are approximately equal to each other and when combined are approximately equal in importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) Factor 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

Phase II proposals may be submitted by the Offerors who receive written notification via a letter from the Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of this RFP. Unsuccessful Offerors will receive written notification via a letter from the Contracting Officer that its firm has not been selected to participate in Phase II of this RFP. Approximately 10 Offerors will be selected to move to Phase II.

The importance of price will increase if the Offeror’s non-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-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. Submittal Requirements and Basis of Evaluation for Each Factor.

a. Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror’s price proposal shall be separate from the technical proposal. Complete and submit the following:

(a) Cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including Entity Identification number.

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

(c) Seed Project, Task Order N44255-18-R-5003/X001, SF 1442 Blocks 14 through 20c.

(d) Bid Bond in the amount of 20% of the Seed Project (Task Order N44255-18-R-5003/X001).

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

$20,000,000 bonding capacity per project and provide the Offeror’s aggregate maximum bonding capacity.

(f) 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).

(2) Basis of Evaluation of Total Price:

(a) The Government will evaluate the Seed Project, Task Order N44255-18-R-5003/X001 price based on the total price, consisting of CLIN 0001

(b) Bid Bond. The Bid Bond will be evaluated for accuracy and completeness in accordance with FAR

28.101. See Attachment D, Bid Bond Review Checklist.

(c) Letter from the Offeror’s surety. The letter from the bonding company will be evaluated to assess the risk of the Offeror listed in Block 14 of the SF1442 being able to provide sufficient bonding for both individual and multiple task orders during the life of this contract.

(d) Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness and completeness of the

Offeror’s proposal.

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

(f) A price found to be unreasonably high in relation to the proposed work may negatively impact the

Offeror’s ranking.

(g) Representations and Certifications will be reviewed in the SAM to ensure they are complete.

(h) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price for

(i) Seed Project Task Order N44255-18-R-5003/X001:

1. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

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.

b. Non-price Factors:

(1) 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:

(i) 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 double-sided page (or two single-sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item (ii) below is not included in this page limitation.

(ii) 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) in addition to the narrative.

(a) 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.

(2) Factor 2 – Experience:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(i) Construction Experience:

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

Similar in size: Construction project at or above $4,000,000. One construction project must be greater than $7,000,000.

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 (i.e. Beneficial Occupancy Date occurred) within the past seven years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A construction project is defined as a 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 double-sided page (or two 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 solicitation (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. Applicable documentation is not included in the specified page limitation for this factor.

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 projects combined.

Experience of a subcontractor will not be considered.

If the Offeror’s proposal presents the experience, past performance, or safety data of any entity with an EIN or CAGE code that differs from that in the SF 1442, the information will not be considered unless the offeror establishes a basis for imputing the other entity's data to the offeror. The Government will not assume or independently investigate the existence and nature of a relationship between the offeror and any other entity that has a different EIN and CAGE code. The offeror must clearly explain why another entity's experience, past performance, or safety record is relevant to or indicative of the Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. A mere statement describing a corporate affiliation is insufficient; the offeror must also establish how the connection or nexus between it and the other entity relates to the Offeror’s qualifications.

The explanation for all projects will be limited to one double-sided page (or two single-sided pages), and must be included under Factor 2, Experience. See Evaluation Factors for Award, Note 1.

(ii) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of five 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 design project is further defined as:

Similar in size: Construction project at or above $4,000,000. One construction project must be greater than $7,000,000.

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 years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A design 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 double-sided page (or two 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 letter of commitment or teaming agreement as applicable. Offerors are still limited to a total of five design projects combined.

If the Offeror’s proposal presents the experience, past performance, or safety data of any entity with a EIN or CAGE code that differs from that in the SF 1442, the information will not be considered unless the offeror establishes a basis for imputing the other entity's data to the offeror. The Government will not assume or independently investigate the existence and nature of a relationship between the offeror and any other entity that has a different EIN and CAGE code. The offeror must clearly explain why another entity's experience, past performance, or safety record is relevant to or indicative of the Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. A mere statement describing a corporate affiliation is insufficient; the offeror must also establish how the connection or nexus between it and the other entity relates to the Offeror’s qualifications.

The explanation for all projects will be limited to one double-sided page on (or two single-sided pages), and must be included under Factor 2, Experience. See Evaluation Factors for Award, 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 solicitation.

The Government will only review five projects for construction and five for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five for Construction Experience and five for Design Experience will not be considered.

Offerors who provide 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. *

Offerors who provide relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience. *

Offerors who provide relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features. *

Offerors who provide relevant construction projects over $15,000,000 may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with relevant construction projects over $15,000,000*

*If the majority of Offerors have at least one project that meets these requirements, more weight will be given to those with multiple projects that meet these requirements.

(3) Factor 3 – Past Performance:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed Architect Engineer (AE) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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 CPARS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment C.1 Construction Experience and C.2 Design Experience) 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, Nicole Riffe at nicole.riffe@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 double-sided pages (or four 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 will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and the Government may elect to consider past performance data from other sources. (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source.)

The Government will consider the recency 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 team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

(4) 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:

(i) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

Include five previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the Offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends shall be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(ii) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) And Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates (as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration);

Submit five previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an Offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART, and TRC rate data negatively shall be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(iii) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. 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. The Offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contractor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one double sided page (or two single sided pages.)

Note: For a partnership or joint venture, the EMR, DART, and TRC submittal requirements are required for each Offeror who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one technical approach for safety narrative is required. Safety narratives for joint ventures may be up to two double sided pages (or four single sided pages) in length.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The safety factor evaluation will collectively consider the following three submittal requirements, and Other sources of information available to the Government:

EMR – The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating for the five previous complete calendar years (these ratings will not be averaged). If no EMR exists, the board will evaluate the Offeror’s insurance company-provided equivalent rate, or the Offeror’s explanation addressing the lack of rates. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends shall be addressed as part of this selection factor.

OSHA DART and TRC rates – The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates for the five previous complete calendar years (these ratings will not be averaged). If the Offeror is unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, the board will evaluate the Offeror’s explanation addressing the lack of rates. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends shall be addressed as part of this element.

Offeror 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 board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

Other sources of information available to the Government – Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(5) Factor 5 – Technical Solution

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).

- Description of the integration of the SCIF requirements into the building layout and function. The narrative shall also address the specialized mechanical, electrical, and telecommunication systems requirements required for SCIF spaces.

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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.

(6) Factor 6 – Energy Design Reduction

(i) Energy Efficiency Narrative:

Provide a detailed narrative describing how the proposed solution will meet baseline ASHRAE 90.1- 2013. Also describe how the solution will provide at least a 30% energy reduction below the baseline ASHRAE 90.1, based on life cycle cost effectiveness.

To determine solution, use the ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G – Performance Rating Method, except replace the formula in G1.2 with the following:

• Percentage improvement = 100 × ((Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads) − (Proposed building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)) / (Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)

• List proposed building features used to obtain the percent energy reduction.

Organize narrative in four parts: 1) Orientation, Configuration, and Shape; 2) Envelope properties (fenestration, solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC), wall and roof insulation values (U-values), window U-values); 3) Mechanical (HVAC, plumbing, and domestic hot water heating systems, including any solar hot water systems); and 4) Electrical Systems (lighting and control systems, including any interior and exterior lighting systems, renewable energy and control systems).

Where 30% reduction is not lifecycle cost effective, provide highest percent energy reduction that is lifecycle cost effective.

Note: Building performance rating and percent energy reduction are calculated in terms of energy rather than energy cost.

Do not exceed two double-sided pages (or four single-sided pages).

(b) Whole Building Energy Simulation:

The Whole Building Energy Solution requires the use of the following documents included in Part 6 of this RFP:

- Government Baseline Building Performance Narrative which includes:

• Government Baseline Building Energy Model inputs for envelope, mechanical, and electrical building systems.

• Default simulation factors

• Utility Costs (energy rates) for project, based on local [un]burdened PWD rates

- Performance Rating Method Compliance Report based on United States Green Building Council’s LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 edition, Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credit 1, Tables 3, 4, and 6.

Use Whole Building Energy Simulation to calculate the percentage improvement over the baseline building performance. Receptacle and process loads are included in the “Whole Building Energy Simulation” as part of the building loads. Submit the Performance Rating Method Compliance Report Form (attachment E) in PDF electronic file format.

(c) Basis of Government Evaluation:

1) Energy Efficiency Narrative and Solution: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed energy efficiency narrative and solution.

2) Whole Building Energy Simulation: The Government will evaluate the Whole Building Energy Simulation to determine the validity of the design assumptions, thoroughness and accuracy of the Whole Building Energy Simulation, and the percent improvement of energy consumption reduction below the Government’s “Baseline Building Performance”.

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. 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 technical proposal shall submit all questions in writing on a Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Form, Attachment A. Inquiries shall follow the instructions on Attachment A and be submitted via e-mail to nicole.riffe@navy.mil. Offerors shall submit only one (1) inquiry per PPI Form. Pre-proposals inquiries will be accepted up to 18 April 2019. A response will be provided via amendment to the solicitation.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Pursuant to FAR 4.502, this solicitation is being conducted electronically. All Phase I solicitation documents will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) at https://www.fbo.gov/.

2.2 Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted and submitted as follows:

2.2.1 PHASE ONE:

Phase One proposals shall be submitted 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 must be sealed. Submit proposals to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest Attn: Mrs. Nicole Riffe 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 204 Silverdale, WA 98315-1101

If the Offeror is mailing its proposal, mail to the address above. If the Offeror is hand delivering its proposal to NAVFAC Northwest building 1101, please call Nicole Riffe at (360) 396-6707 to make arrangements prior to your arrival, to be met at the lobby. Offerors 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.

If the Offeror is hand-delivering its proposal and has not made arrangements for badges, NAVFAC Northwest personnel will be at Pass & ID, Building 1035, Naval Base Kitsap, Bangor, for one hour, prior to the proposal submittal deadline. Please call Nicole Riffe at (360) 396-6707 to make arrangements prior to your arrival.

Whenever possible use the forms provided; however, Offerors may substitute their own forms as long as the information submitted is substantially the same as that shown on each form. 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 attachments. Provide a table of contents.

• Phase One Proposal: one original with original signature and date, four additional hardcopies, and one copy on CD. If there is a discrepancy between the original, hardcopies, or copy on CD, the original takes precedence.

• 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:

Phase One Proposals shall be received no later than 2:00 p.m. local time on 03 May 2019 NO EMAIL or

FACSIMILE FOR PROPOSALS OR AMENDMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED.

Late submissions shall be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004) reference subparagraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (1), and FAR 15.208.

A cover letter shall accompany the Phase One Proposal and shall include:

(a) The solicitation number;

(b) The name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and email addresses of the Offeror and Lead Design Firm;

(c) The Entity Identifier Number, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror and Lead Design Firm;

(d) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

(e) Names, titles, phone and facsimile numbers, and email addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation and;

(f) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

Phase One Proposals shall be organized and include the following:

(a) Cover Letter

(b) SF1442 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) with Blocks 14 through 20c completed

(c) Representations and Certifications, including the supplemental certifications in Section 00600 and VETS-4212 confirmation of filing. If an Offeror is not required to file a VETS-4212 report, the Offeror shall provide an explanation.

(d) Tab 1: Factor 1-Technical Approach (Narrative, Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable)

(e) Tab 2: Factor 2- Experience (Construction and Design Experience Data Sheet, Attachment “B”) Factor 3- Past Performance (Immediately behind corresponding Factor 2 Project) (Evaluations/Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment “C.1” Construction PPQ and “C.2” Design PPQ)

(f) Tab 3: Factor 4 Safety

Offerors are asked to submit only the information/Attachments required. Do not submit any additional information such as brochures, or other pre-printed materials.

2.2.2 PHASE TWO:

Instructions to be amended into this document prior to entering Phase Two of the procurement. Do not submit Phase Two information in Phase One proposals.

3. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

A pre-proposal conference will be held. Information to be amended into this document prior to entering Phase Two of the procurement.

4. JOINT VENTURES

FAR 19.101(7)(I) Defines joint venture as: a joint venture for size determination purposes is an association of persons or concerns with interests in any degree or proportion by way of contract, express or implied, consorting to engage in and carry out a single specific business venture for joint profit, for which purpose they combine their efforts, property, money, skill, or knowledge, but not on a continuing or permanent basis for conducting business generally. A joint venture is viewed as a business entity in determining power to control its management.

5. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM)

All Offerors, including Joint Ventures, must be registered in SAM prior to submitting a proposal for a DoD contract and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance and through final payment of any contract resulting from this solicitation. Offeror’s not registered in SAM will be considered non-responsive. Remember to review your NAICS codes listed in your SAM record to make sure that you have listed the NAICS code for this procurement.

For additional information, including how to register, please go to www.sam.gov.

6. FEDERAL CONTRACTOR PROGRAM

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.1303, any contractor or subcontractor with a contract of $150,000 or more with the Federal Government must take affirmative action to hire and promote qualified covered veterans which includes, disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, active duty veterans, wartime or campaign badge veterans, or armed forces service medal veterans.

Companies must file an annual VETS-4212 report, which shows the number of qualified covered veterans in their work force by job category, hiring location, and number of new hires, including qualified covered veterans hired during the reporting period and the maximum number and minimum number of employees of such contractor during the period covered by the report. Instructions, information and follow-up assistance is provided at VETS-4212 Internet site at https://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm or employers may contact the VETS-4212 office at (866) 237-0275 or e-mail at VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov. A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor that has not submitted a required annual form VETS-4212, Federal Contractor Veterans’ Employment Report (VETS-4212 Report) if subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212(d) for that fiscal year.

A confirmation of the VETS-4212 Report filing shall be submitted with the Proposal. If an Offeror is not required to file a VETS-4212 report, the Offeror shall provide an explanation. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture and the JV does not meet the requirements to file a VETS-4212, the Offeror shall provide a confirmation of the VETS-4212 Report filing for each partner.

This contractor and subcontractor shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR 60-300.5(a). This regulation prohibits discrimination against qualified protected veterans, and requires affirmative action by covered prime contractors and subcontractors to employ and advance in employment qualified protected veterans.

7. INCURRED EXPENSES

The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

8. PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Phase Two of this solicitation includes technical requirements package/plans and specifications for the seed project only. No technical requirements package/plans and specifications will be included in the basic MACC’s. Each task order request for proposal will be issued with its own plans and specifications specific to that project.

9. PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENTS:

Proposals must be set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this request for proposal (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed n 18 U.S.C. 1001.

10. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS:

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the best terms from a technical and price standpoint. Offerors should not assume that they would be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal containing qualifications, conditions, or expressing unilateral interpretations of the RFP/contract requirements may be rejected and the Offeror excluded from the potential competitive range. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the established criteria and award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SECTION 00600 - REPRESENTATION

The following Provisions were moved from section 00700 to 00600

52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JULY 2013)

252.204-7007 ALTERNATE A, ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (JAN 2015)

(End of Summary of Changes)