A0005_SF30.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

This amendment provides responses to pre-proposal inquiries w ith the associated draw ings. DWGS Part 1 and Part 2 are attached.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Feb-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N62470-14-R-5001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Jan-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

11-Feb-2014

CODE

COMMANDER NAVFAC ATLANTIC

NAVY CRANE CENTER

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD

BLDG 491

PORTSMOUTH VA 23709-5000

N62470 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

(See Continuation Pages)

N62470-14-R-5001

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 0005

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

Question 1:

Section M, Factor 1 Technical Approach:

There is not enough information provided in the solicitation drawings to create the GA drawing required with the proposal, of the machinery house and operators cab. Please provide the structural / mechanical layouts of the existing machinery house and operators cab.

Response:

DC-29: See DWGs 61441, 61525, 61526, 61535, 61536, 61537, 61538, 61543 for structural/mechanical layouts of existing machinery house and operators cab.

DC-37: See DWGs 64918, 65072, 65073, 65116, 65117, 65118, 65119, 65129 for structural/mechanical layouts of existing machinery house and operators cab.

Question 2:

Section M, Factor 1 Technical Approach:

There is not enough information provided in the solicitation to perform the calculations required with the proposal for the whip hoist headache ball and wire rope sizing. Please provide the drawings of the existing cranes showing, at minimum, the boom length, min. and max boom angle, min, and max, hook height, and any running or deflector sheaves in the whip hoist line.

Response:

DC-29: See DWG 61439 for boom length, min/max boom angle, min/max hook height. See DWG 61718 for whip hoist reeving diagram.

DC-37: See DWG 64916 for boom length, min/max boom angle, min/max hook height. See DWG 65412 for whip hoist reeving diagram.

Question 3:

Specification Paragraph 2.3.18:

There is not enough information in the solicitation for estimating the length of rope required to be supplied for the various whip hoists. Please provide the lengths of rope required for each crane, any existing end socket details (drum end) or the complete whip hoist machinery, drum, sheaves, boom, drawing set.

Response:

According to the reeving diagram for DC-29 (DWG 61718), the whip hoist wire rope is 550 linear ft long. This is the same length that was used to replace the whip hoist wire rope on DC-30 in 2005 per LHWI 05-00255. The reeving diagram for DC-37 (DWG 65412) also indicates a whip hoist wire rope length of 550 linear ft. This should be verified, however, as the larger crane boom hinge is 15 ft higher and the booms are 50 ft longer than on the small cranes.

Question 4:

Specification Paragraph 2.3.1.1:

“All electrical components removed from the crane shall be turned over to the Government.” Does this include the existing diesel generator sets?

Response:

The diesel generator sets will be retained by the government.

Question 5:

There is confusion on the amount of copies needed for the price proposal. On Pg. 68 its says "(3) (#1 original with #4 copies) of the price proposal." but on Pg. 70 under Eval. Factors for Award Para. 3 "Sol. Submittal Requirements" says "Submit one original price proposal with (2) copies."

Response:

(1) Original and (4) copies of the price proposal are requested. See change to Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.

Question 6:

Just want to be clear there are a total of (3) separate sections for this proposal. One being a signed solicitation package, two being the technical proposal and three being the "price" proposal. And that you want an actual breakdown of the items listed on pg. 68 (d) Price Proposal, usually overhead, profit, direct costs, etc. are not included in a bid package.

Response:

Correct (See Section L, 5252.215-9300 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS)

Question 7:

Item (d) Copy of Contractor Reps & Certs from SAM website, are you just looking for the Reps & Certs section of our SAM registration or do you want the entire registration information?

Response:

Only a copy of the Contractor Representations and Certifications was requested to be submitted with the price proposal (See Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award).

Question 8:

We've never had to provide this information on previous proposal, could you please explain why this information is needed? Also it doesn't seem that the "Price" proposal is the actual pricing per crane/per year just financial information; is this correct? Calling this the price proposal is a tad confusing.

Response:

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, submittal requirement paragraphs, 3(a)(1)(d), (e), and (f) are necessary for responsibility determination as required by FAR 9.104, not for evaluation purposes (See the change to 5252.215- 9300 (d)).

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

5252.215-9300 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (JAN 2003)

(a) PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. The technical proposal and the price proposal shall be submitted in separate volumes. The technical proposal shall not contain any pricing information, except for salary information provided on resumes (if applicable). The technical proposal presented by the offeror to whom the award is made will be incorporated into the contract at time of award.

(b) The offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) (#1 original with #2 copies) completed signed solicitation packages, including executed representations and certifications, and prices in Section B and any accompanying exhibits (Attachment JB-1, Supplemental Pricing, Exhibit Line Items) and Bid Bond Standard Form 24.

(2) (#1 original with #4 copies) of the technical proposal.

(3) (#1 original with #4 copies) of the price proposal.

(c) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. Each technical proposal shall be precise, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements. As a minimum, the proposal must contain sufficient detail so that it may be evaluated in accordance with the EVALUATION FACTORS provision, Section M. Submit one copy of the technical proposal on CD and the document should be Adobe Acrobat files (.pdf).

(d) PRICE PROPOSAL. Each price proposal shall contain the information required in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph 3 (a) (1). Submit one copy of the price proposal on CD and the document may be in either Microsoft excel or Adobe Acrobat files.

(e) BOND REQUIREMENT: A Standard Form 24, Bid Bond in the amount of 20% or the price payable for CLIN 0001 is required with proposal submission.

(1) Offers are solicited on an “all or none” basis and FAR 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-

COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (MAY 2001)” in Section L, is hereby modified. Failure to submit offers for all line items listed shall be cause for rejection of the offer.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

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

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. 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 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. As stated in the solicitation, 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 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization Subfactor 4.A. – Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns Subfactor 4.B. – Small Business Participation Factor 5 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors is the technical factors (e.g. Factors, 1, 2, 3, 4 and their respective subfactors) are of equal importance to each other respectively and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 5). 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 whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

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

(a) Price

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit (1) one original price proposal with (4) four copies. Submit one copy of the price proposal on CD. The price proposal must be separate from the non-cost/price proposal and clearly labeled as price. The price proposal shall include the following:

(a) Completed SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award

(b) Completed Price Schedule, Section B and Exhibit Line Items, with pricing for each crane and crane rail lubrication option in each period of performance. Exhibit Line Items shall be submitted in hard copy and Microsoft Excel format on the CD.

(c) Bid Bond

(d) Copy of Contractor Representations and Certification from the System for Award Management

(SAM) website at www.sam.gov

(e) The Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report (VETS-100 Annual Report)

(f) The latest three year complete fiscal year financial statements, certified by an independent accounting firm, if available, or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). For purposes of evaluation the total price for all cranes and all options for each year of performance will be used for evaluation purposes (i.e the total of CLINS 0001 through 0005 and including their associated ELINS, Exhibits A through E).

The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.”

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Factor 1 Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit the following information:

Provide general arrangement drawings (with key dimensions) for (1) Operator cab layout, and (2) machinery house layout, including affected and newly installed components, for one Craft 60T portal crane. The general arrangement drawings shall be clear and legible. In addition, provide calculations verifying the following:

1. Caliper disc brake, considering crane design 30% impact factor as defined in the specification,

2. Diesel-generator, and

3. Wire rope design factor and headache ball selection/sizing.

All calculations may be by hand or computer generated and shall show relevant equations, assumptions, and variables.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s design approach and assess the offeror’s understanding of the specification requirements by reviewing general arrangement drawings and indicated calculations.

(1) Factor 2 Management Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative that specifically indicates how you intend to manage, organize and coordinate in-house, subcontractor, vendor and on-site operations in order to ensure successful and timely execution of the work. The narrative should clearly reflect an understanding of the critical aspects of work.

This narrative must identify management operations that would be employed in managing the engineering staff (in-house and contracted), external fabrication shop, and field efforts. The narrative must reflect the current engineering and quality control staff including certifications, professional registration, and years of crane experience. The narrative shall not exceed three (3) pages.

(2) Provide a corporate organization chart not exceeding two (2) pages that clearly shows the divisions, departments, organizations, or entities that would be responsible for the various types of supplies and services that may be required and ordered under this award. The organizational chart must reflect lines of reporting for corporate staff and all proposed subcontracted services. The Quality Control staff reporting must also be clearly annotated to define QC’s relationship to management (chain of command).

(3) Provide a proposed schedule for completion of one portal crane modernization demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of the major milestones required for successful completion of the requirements contained in the RFP.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan for managing the work required by the solicitation. In addition, the Government will evaluate the structure of the offeror’s organization to assess both internal authorities and relationships for critical aspects of work, personnel experience, quality control responsibilities, and demonstrated knowledge of the various steps required to successfully provide portal crane modernization services.

(3) Factor 3 Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years (2011, 2012, and 2013), submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why.

Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three previous complete calendar years (2011, 2012, and 2013), submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why.

Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any and innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror.

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

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

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

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(4) Factor 4 Small Business Utilization:

Factor 4 consists of two Subfactors, 5A, Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 5B, Small Business Participation. The evaluation of Subfactors 4A and 4B are of equal importance to the determination of Factor 4 Rating.

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

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

SUBFACTOR 4.A – PAST PERFORMANCE IN UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

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

a. Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s contracts referenced under Factor 5, Past Performance. Recently completed project evaluations are desired. If more than five evaluation ratings are provided, only the first five will be considered. In addition, the Government may consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources (such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support Systems (CCASS)), Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

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

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

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

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

e. Provide small business subcontracting history. Large businesses with Federal contracting experience shall provide final or current (most recent reporting period available at time of proposal submittal) SF294s “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on all contracts referenced under Factor 5 Past Performance. SF294s or ISRs that are not final or current will not be considered. If more than five (5) reports are provided, only the first five (5) will be considered. If goals were not met on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why. Newly established Large Businesses, or Large Businesses with no prior SF294/ISR history for each contract referenced under Factor 5 shall submit a subcontracting history on Attachment D, Small Business Past Performance.

f. Small Business proposers shall provide a subcontracting history on Attachment D), Small Business Past Performance.

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

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

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

SUBFACTOR 4.B – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member, e.g., LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, etc.

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

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

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

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

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

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

d. The realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals.

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

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

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

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

SB 66.67% 66.8% 66.94% 67.07% 67.2%

SDB 17.1% 17.27% 17.44% 17.62% 17.79%

WOSB 15% 15.3% 15.45% 15.61% 15.77%

HUBZone Small Business 8.85% 8.94% 9.03% 9.12% 9.21%

VOSB 3% 3.03% 3.06% 3.09% 3.12%

SDVOSB 3% 3.03% 3.06% 3.09% 3.12%

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

Attachment JM-2 – Small Business Past Performance Attachment JM-3 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Attachment JM-4 – Small Business Offeror Small Business Participation Breakdown.

(4) Factor 5 Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Given the nature of the work required by this solicitation, it is anticipated that the Offeror may be Joint Venture, Partnership, LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity. The Offeror may utilize past performance of a subcontractor, partner, team or Joint Venture (JV) member that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate past performance required under this evaluation factor. Major aspects mean 10% or more of the dollar value of the work required by the solicitation. The Offeror must provide an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor, partner or, team or JV member will have in performance of this contract. Any supporting agreements evidencing the relationship between two or more business entities (e.g. letters of intent, teaming agreements, etc.) shall be submitted with the proposal Failure to submit letters of intent, teaming agreements, meaningful involvement, or other evidence of commitment may result in the Government not evaluating the past performance of the subcontractor, partner, team, or JV member.

The Offeror shall provide relevant past performance information on a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of (5) projects that best demonstrates past performance on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as follows:

- Project involving overhaul, modernization and/or service life extension of cranes with a capacity of 50 tons or more, and

- Project completed within the last five (5) years of the date of the solicitation

A project demonstrating the Offeror’s past performance in the following areas may be more relevant:

replacement/modification of electric control systems, replacement of crane diesel engine generator set, addition of new limit switches, replacement of whip hoist wire rope and replacement of outdoor conduit.

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

Past performance submissions for relevant projects defined above shall include the following:

IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE

PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each relevant project. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS

AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. 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 (provided as an attachment) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Barbara Spruill, via email at barbara.t.spruill@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. 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 team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) 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.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history or whose history is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown Confidence rating. For this evaluation, less than two relevant projects to evaluate is considered too sparse a performance record to reasonably assign a confidence assessment rating and will be rated as unknown confidence.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment JM-1.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (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) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds”

(End of Summary of Changes)