Amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0003 is being issued for the follow ing:

1. Respond to pre-proposal inquiries

2. Revise the Specification

3. Revise Section M of the solicitation

4. Provide General Arrangement draw ings for AE23 and AE27

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Dec-2017

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 N6247017R3009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Oct-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Dec-2017

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:

N6247017R3009

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 0003

SPECIFICATION

Section 2.3.1.7 Service Platforms (Footwalks)

At the end of the second paragraph remove the sentence “There shall be a trolley access from the crossover platform”

Section 2.3.2.1 Design Factors

Replace the first two sentences with: “Stresses and ratings for design and selection of mechanical drive components, except as modified herein, shall be computed using the continuous rated torque or horsepower of the driving motor.

Design and selection of the wire rope drum and supporting components (e.g., pedestals, barrel couplings, drum bearings, etc.) shall be governed by the drum line pull.

Section 2.3.3.14 Bridge-To-Trolley Electrification

Replace the entire section with the following:

“Bridge-to-trolley electrification shall be either a festooned type utilizing flat cables suspended from carriers riding on an I-beam or C-track, or a flexible cable tray electrification system. The conductors shall be selected so as to be of the longest length without splices. Conductors shall be fabricated from copper. A minimum of 20% of the festoon control circuit conductors for each electrification system shall be spares at the time of crane acceptance. The trolley is required to be grounded through this conductor system. Bridge-to-trolley electrification components shall not contact the walkway floor, or extend below the high hook position or the bottom of the bridge girder, whichever is lower. The system shall also be designed to not come into contact with any obstruction within the building.”

Responses to PPI 2-31

2) QUESTION: I can fill out the list of questions but a lot would go away if we had a picture and drawing of the existing crane. We have questions as to how the cab is now since it only has available about a 6’-6” space for it and also the existing wheel bases. Is this something you can provide us, or do I need to fill out the request for information sheets?

RESPONSE: Existing AE23 and AE27 general arrangement drawings are provided with Amendment 0003.

3) QUESTION: The proposal requires we provide calculations for the crane: We believe that SD-05.M2 and SD-05.M3 request is excessive. This would require us to design the complete trolley and two hoists. Reeving, drum size, rope, sheave sizes etc. This is a substantial amount of work for such a large Class E crane. We believe that this would take a month on its own to complete. Please reconsider this, if you must have then we would need much more time to provide such details.

RESPONSE: Calculations as stated in the RFP are required.

4) QUESTION: Currently the bids are due by 12-11-17. This is very fast for such a large technical proposal.

We have holidays etc. We would request it gets pushed out to the New Year. Please consider that people that may be needed to support Relevant Past Experience may not be in the office over the next month or so.

RESPONSE: Amendment 0002 extended the proposal due date to 1/9/18.

5) QUESTION: Was the existing crane designed to the Class E requirements? We are concerned because of the sizing of drums, ropes, etc. and your request to meet existing space and hook approaches.

RESPONSE: It is unknown if the existing AE23 crane was designed to Class E and no documentation is available. The existing AE27 crane was designed for Class E service as shown on the provided arrangement drawing.

6) QUESTION: Will a letter from our bonding company showing our ability to bond jobs and have financial resources suffice in lieu of audited financial statements.

RESPONSE: The requirement for the last three year’s complete fiscal year financial statements to be submitted as part of the offeror’s price proposal has been deleted via Amendment 0003.

7) QUESTION: Do you have drawings of the existing cranes AE-27 and AE-23, Paragraph

2.3.1.4 End Trucks. We need for these requirements: The east end plate of the end truck shall be designed for contact with the crane AE-27 bumpers (i.e. no bumper on east end of bridge end truck);

Bridge end truck shall be designed such that when the new crane is coming into contact with the adjacent crane AE- 27 the centerline-to-centerline distance between hooks of both cranes does not exceed 29 feet.

RESPONSE: Existing AE23 and AE27 general arrangement drawings are provided with Amendment 0003.

8) QUESTION: 2.3.3.12 Runway Electrification: Do you have drawings of existing runway electrification?

We need this in order to understand what will be required by this requirement:

If there is any way personnel working on the crane can contact the runway electrification a guard(s) shall be installed to prevent contact. Runway electrification exists on both sides of the crane (AE-23 AC electrification on the north rail and DC electrification on the south rail for another crane located on the same rails).

The guard(s) shall be designed and constructed so that it cannot be deformed to make contact with energized parts.

RESPONSE: Existing AE23 and AE27 cranes currently share the same electrification. Please see provided AE27 general arrangement drawing for available electrification information.

9) QUESTION: Section 1.8 SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING: Does the NAVY know how much time we should consider for NAVY work that may stop our work?

RESPONSE: The intent is not to have any Navy work delay the contractor.

10) QUESTION: Section H: What is the facility ground loading limitations?

RESPONSE: No ground loading limitations are known. NFPC typically has components on the floor that weigh up to 350,000 lbs. resting on small timbers.

11) QUESTION: During the meeting yesterday it was stated that PE stamped drawings have to be providing with the quote. Is that true? The spec does not call for any drawings with the quotation. We plan on providing a general arrangement drawing that will not have a PE stamps. The PE stamped drawing will be provided after award.

Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Stamped drawings are required per the requirements stated in the RFP.

12) QUESTION: Spec section 2.3.3.12 Runway electrification. It was stated in the meeting that the runway conductor bar will need to be mounted on the North runway. We noticed that the North runway beam will be in close proximity to the cab on the new crane. We believe this would be a safety hazard for the personal that board the crane cab. Can the runway electrification be installed above the current AC system on the South Runway (the current power feed is on the North side). It was also noticed that the existing AC crane already has bar on the South, and that could be shared with the new crane. Please let me know.

RESPONSE: New electrification is to be installed per specification sections 1.3.1 and 2.3.3.12.

13) QUESTION: Ref. Par. 2.3.3.12 Runway Electrification – It is our understanding from reading this paragraph that the existing DC runway electrification and existing overhead AC electrification are to remain in place and we are just adding a new, additional AC electrification system along the runway girders and no existing electrification system removal is required. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: No existing electrification system removal is required.

14) QUESTION: Ref. Par. 2.3.3.12 Runway Electrification – Will a conductor guard will need to be designed and installed over the trolley to prevent personnel from contacting the existing overhead AC conductor system. Or is the existing system considered “touch-safe” since it is enclosed with a flexible insulated covering?

RESPONSE: Provide guard as stated in specification section 2.3.3.12.

15) QUESTION: Ref. Par. 2.3.3.13 Collectors – Will the existing AC crane be powered from the new runway AC electrification system as well as the new crane?

RESPONSE: The new AE23 will have its own electrification.

16) QUESTION: Please provide an operational clearance drawing of crane AE-27 to allow for determining envelope of the new crane in regards the to 29’ maximum hook center distance between the new proposed crane and existing crane AE-27. Specific dimensions needed are: Load hook to bumper on the west side of AE-27 and load hook to extent of crane on the west side of AE-27.

RESPONSE: Existing AE23 and AE27 general arrangement drawings are provided.

17) QUESTION: What is the maximum allowable floor loading in the building?

RESPONSE: No ground loading limitations are known. NFPC typically has components on the floor that weigh up to 350,000 lbs. resting on small timbers.

18) QUESTION: Can building angle bracing be removed from the center bay between roof frames for mobile crane access?

RESPONSE: Modification to the roof structure or removal of structural members is not allowed.

19) QUESTION: Spec Reference: (4) Factor 4 Technical Approach paragraph 2. Is the intent for all submitted drawings for this proposal be Reviewed and Stamped by a Professional Engineer?

RESPONSE: Stamped drawings are required per the requirements stated in the RFP.

20) QUESTION: Spec Reference: (4) Factor 4 Technical Approach paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 says “Drawings shall be created for viewing in AutoCAD 2010 with a drawing File format of .dwg or .dxf and a separate copy viewable in Adobe Acrobat …” Is the intent for the Bidders to submit both AutoCAD and PDF General Arrangement drawing files for this proposal?

RESPONSE: Yes

21) QUESTION: Specification section 2.3.2.1 states “For wire rope drum and related component calculations, the line pull off the drum shall be taken as that necessary to balance rated motor torque.” Using the rated motor torque would indicate that the intent of the specification is to have the motor be the failure point in an overload or “stuck hook” condition. This would have large impacts on the design of the hoist drive train causing wire rope, drum, load pins, etc. to grow in size due to the motor selection. For example, if 60.2 HP is required, a 75 HP motor is the next standard size and would be used. This causes the drive train to be designed around the torque induced from a 75 HP motor, not the 60.2 HP required to lift the load. To the best of our knowledge, the design standards in the listed reference documents (CMAA, AISC, etc.) do not require such design criteria for the hoist components.

However, since this is potentially an important safety requirement within the design, we want to ensure that the intent of the specification is being properly interpreted and implemented. Should the design drive train rope load come from the actual rope load based on crane capacity or should the rope load be determined from the rated motor torque and horsepower through the gearcase?

RESPONSE: See Amendment 0003 Specification revisions.

22) QUESTION: Seed project specification in 1.5.2 states that you want fall protection on 4 corners of the trolley, at transfer points: transfer fall protection. In 2.3.1.7 page 29 of 222 Service Platforms, it says All Areas of the crane that can have personnel access (Walkways, service platform, catwalk or similar) OR have openings that persons could fall into/through shall have fall protection. Do you want continuous fall protection on all walkways and crossovers even though you have specified they have swing gates at all entry points and are otherwise enclosed by handrail of a very large girder? OSHA does not require this.

RESPONSE: Section 1.5.2 requires fall protection anchorages in lieu of walkways with handrails;

specifically, a minimum of four anchorage points, but this number needs to increase when the trolleys size and configuration require more anchorage points to meet the trolley coverage (i.e. transfer) requirement.

Section 2.3.1.7 requires walkways with handrails in specific places to meet specify purposes. Fall protection anchorages are not required on walkways meeting OSHA and Contract requirements (e.g. handrails, toe boards, gates, etc.).

23) QUESTION: Can we use an Energy Chain system for the cross bridge electrification? It would be easier to reach the heavy cabling, and can be put over next to the girder, over the walk way which will give it protection from radiant heat better than a festoon system hanging down.

24) QUESTION: On the face of the SF33 document, the validity time is 60 days but in the body of the solicitation under C3. Contract Award, on page 5 of 59 it says 90. Is it 90?

RESPONSE: Block12 of the SF33 document states, “In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within ______ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.” This section must be completed by the offeror and should reflect the acceptance period stated in section C3, which is 90 calendar days.

25) QUESTION: In the meeting there was mention that the crane transformers may contain PCB’s but it is unknown at time of solicitation. How shall we cover this in our proposals?

RESPONSE: NCC is not aware of any PCB's on the existing crane.

26) QUESTION: In the meeting it was brought up that there will be lead and asbestos on the crane. The contractor is responsible for the removal of lead containing material and asbestos where required for disassembly and also responsible for the proper disposal of the crane. Is the contractor also responsible for the disposal of the removed lead and asbestos material or will the Navy be providing receptacles for the removed material? Found in 1.3.6

RESPONSE: The contractor is responsible for the disposal of hazardous material as stated in specification section 1.3.6.

27) QUESTION: A drawing (s) of the existing Reading Crane and the Pictures that were taken at the site by the Navy are required to bid this job. When will we be receiving them? It is only 5 working days until the bid is due.

RESPONSE: Existing AE23 and AE27 general arrangement drawings are provided.

28) QUESTION: In the Solicitation, page 2 of 59 there is a place for a Net amount for Item No 0001 Supplies/Services, Since in the attachments there is a Multiple CLIN Pricing sheet for the seed project as one of the attachments, are we to disregard the one on Page 2 of 59?

RESPONSE: The CLIN 0001 listed in Section B of the contract is for the Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and represents the $40M capacity of the IDIQ Multiple Award Contract (MAC). The Price Proposal Form (Attachment J.2) is for the seed project and shall be completed as part of offeror’s price proposal.

29) QUESTION: In the Seed Project Specification page 25 of 57 paragraph 1.7.1 the top ambient temperature is 120 ° F. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: Yes

30) QUESTION: In the document requirements for the proposal, it is mentioned that we are to make a copy of our SAM documentation regarding Representations and Certifications. 252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and certification (JAN 2015) as noted in the solicitation on page 44 of 59 in sub paragraph says that we need to attest to the validity of our Reps and Certs as stated under this contract. If we attest to the validity of our Sam data, do we have to copy the whole thing and include it in the proposal?

RESPONSE: The Price Proposal submittal requirements require a copy of the Contractor Representations and Certification from www.Sam.gov.

31) QUESTION: Ref. sect. 2.3.1.7 Service platforms (footwalks), the second par. states; the crossover platform shall be on the North end of the crane and have access to the trolley. Later par. 7 states the trolley shall have a fixed ladder allowing for access anywhere it’s located. Due to the close hook approach to the North end of the crane we do not have the physical room to provide the trolley access on the crossover (the Aux. hoist drum is right up against the end of the bridge precluding access to the trolley deck). As long as we provide ladders on both sides of the trolley for access in any location from the girder footwalks will this be acceptable?

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

M1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. Proposals shall be delivered to the following address in accordance with the date and time set for receipt of proposals.

DIRECTOR, NAVY CRANE CENTER

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

BUILDING 491, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23709-1044

Each offeror will be required to submit its proposal in two readily severable parts as follows:

PART 1 – Price PART 2 – Non-Cost/Price

Each part must be fastened or bound together.

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Management and Organization Factor 4 – Technical Approach Factor 5 – Safety

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is that corporate experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, 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.

3. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors, 1, 3, 4, and 5) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 2). 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 significantly more important than price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit one original price proposal and one copy of the price proposal on CD. The document should be Adobe Acrobat files (.pdf format). The price proposal must be separate from the non-cost/price proposal and clearly labeled as price. The price proposal shall include the following:

(i) Completed SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award (Blocks 12-18)

(ii) Completed Price Proposal Form

(iii) A Standard Form 24, Bid Bond in the amount of 20%

(iv) Copy of Contractor Representations and Certification from www.sam.gov

(v) VETS-4212 Annual Report

(vi) The last three year’s 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 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. 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: Submit one original Non-cost/price proposal and one copy of the Non-cost/price proposal on CD. The document should be Adobe Acrobat files (.pdf format).

(1) Factor 1 Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror must comply with the following instructions and provide the following information.

Offerors shall submit detailed information for a maximum of five (5) crane projects demonstrating experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP and were completed within the last five

(5) years or are projected to be completed within six (6) months of the solicitation closing date. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as having at least one of the following characteristics: 1) projects with cranes having top running trolleys with a capacity of 15 tons and greater and with spans of at least 50 feet, or 2) projects with any cranes conforming to ASME NOG-1, or 3) projects with cranes designed for molten metal handling. The projects presented should demonstrate the ability to perform all of the following (NOTE: All abilities are not anticipated to be demonstrated in every project, but each project must demonstrate experience in at least one of these abilities to be considered relevant): site survey/investigation, design, fabrication, rail survey, demolition/removal of existing cranes and equipment, runway/equipment electrification, assembly, crane installation, crane testing, and operational training. It is the offeror’s responsibility to choose projects that best demonstrate experience with the above noted abilities and reflect the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the specification requirements. If applicable, the project description should include a specific brief account of unusual crane complexities and unusual mobilization challenges such as low head room constraints, extreme height, facility remaining operational during crane install, and/or hazardous material abatement.

The write-up for each project shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages. In addition to the written portion, a general arrangement drawing of the crane shall be included.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have experience, projects should be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Projects may be submitted for any joint venture partner; however, offerors who fail to submit experience for each joint venture partner may be considered less favorably. Offerors are still limited to a total of five

(5) projects combined.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of five (5) will not be considered.

- Proposals that demonstrate experience with four or five relevant projects may be rated more favorably. Proposals that demonstrate experience with only one or two relevant projects may be rated less favorably. Proposals with no relevant projects will be considered unacceptable.

- Proposals that do not demonstrate relevant experience in site survey/investigation, design, fabrication, assembly, crane installation, and crane testing will be considered unacceptable.

- Proposals demonstrating relevant experience in demolition/removal of existing cranes and equipment, rail survey, runway/equipment electrification, and/or operational training may be rated more favorably.

- Proposals demonstrating relevant experience with cranes with a capacity above 50 tons may be rated more favorably.

- Proposals demonstrating relevant experience with cranes having above normal complexity designs/controls, features such as single failure proof, synchronizing two or more trolleys on a single crane, molten metal handling or NOG design may be rated more favorably commensurate with the complexity.

- Proposals demonstrating relevant experience with unusual mobilization challenges such as low head room, extreme height, the facility remaining operational during install, and/or requiring hazardous material abatement may be rated more favorably.

(2) Factor 2 Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: 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 project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1 Corporate Experience. 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 should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment J4), 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, Luke Clay, via email at luke.clay@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.

IMPORTANT: It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide accurate points of contact for each identified contract and current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified.

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.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Such explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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.

The criteria for recent and relevant past performance shall be as defined in Factor 1.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment J4.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant, recent detailed projects submitted under Factor 1 – Corporate Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

The Government will also evaluate 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.); and

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

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

(3) Factor 3 Management and Organization:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall follow the below instructions and provide the following information:

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 required under this seed project. The narrative should clearly reflect an understanding of the critical aspects of work processes for the seed project. 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 design experience. The narrative shall not exceed four (4) single-sided pages.

As part of the narrative, also answer the following questions regarding all projects completed by the offeror in the last 5 years or scheduled to be completed in the next 6 months of the solicitation closing date:

(a) What percentage of all projects within the above defined timeline were relevant projects as defined in Factor 1?

(b) What percentage of all projects within the above defined timeline were relevant projects as defined in Factor 1 that have a dollar value of at least $500,000, but not more than $3,000,000?

(c) Summed together, what percentage of all projects within the above timeline were relevant projects as defined in Factor 1 and required installation and testing at sites within the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida? Summed together, what percentage of all projects within the above timeline were relevant projects as defined in Factor 1 and required installation and testing at sites within the states of California and Washington? What percentage of all projects within the above timeline were relevant projects as defined in Factor 1 and required installation and testing at sites outside the continental United States?

In addition, include a corporate organization chart not exceeding two (2) single-sided 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 subcontracted services including engineering services. The Quality Control staff reporting must also be clearly annotated to define QC’s relationship to management (chain of command).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan for managing the work required by the seed project. In addition, the Government will evaluate the structure of the offeror’s organization to assess the following:

- The narratives should address all major corporate facets required to be successful in the execution of the contract award. These facets would include overall project management, planning, engineering, acquisition, fabrication, and field services.

These facets may be accomplished in-house or via contracted services. Narratives that do not address one or more facets may be rated less favorably.

- Available Corporate engineering staff to review and accept any subcontracted engineering services. A state-registered Professional Engineer on staff may be rated more favorably. No engineers on staff may be rated less favorably.

- Sub-contracted engineering services interface to the Corporate organization must be reflected, unless there are no sub-contracted engineering services. Sub-contracted engineering reporting to a Project Manager or directly to production may be viewed less favorably.

- Quality Assurance (QA) with the ability to report to higher levels of Management above the project manager or the fabrication shop manager may be considered more favorably.

- QA staff with identified training in quality assurance may be considered more favorably.

For the specific, enumerated questions regarding projects, the following will be considered:

(a) Proposals that respond indicating greater than 50% for question (a) may be rated more favorably. Proposals that respond indicating less than 10% for question (a) may be rated less favorably. Proposals that respond indicating 0% for question (a) will be considered unacceptable.

(b) Proposals that respond indicating greater than 50% for question (b) may be rated more favorably. Proposals that respond indicating less than 10% for question (b) may be rated less favorably.

(c) Proposals that respond indicating greater than 0% for each geographic region in question

(c) may be rated more favorably. Proposals that respond indicating 0% for two geographic regions in question (c) may be rated less favorably.

(4) Factor 4 Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall comply with the following instructions and provide the following information:

General Arrangement Drawing – Provide a general arrangement drawing (with key dimensions as listed in specification paragraph SD-02.G) for the one 100/40 Ton Bridge Crane required under this project. The general arrangement drawing shall be clear and legible. The drawing shall be in the format required in CDRL A002. The general arrangement drawing design must be in compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of CMAA #70 and be supported with the following calculations: (a) calculations reflecting the required elements in SD-05.S1 for load cases, SD- 05.S2 for girder design, and SD-05.S6 for maximum allowable wheel loads; (b) calculations reflecting the required elements in SD-05.M2 and SD-05.M3 for brake and coupling selection, and; (c) calculations reflecting the required elements in SD-05.E1 for minimum horse power requirements for each drive motor Calculations shall be computer generated and shall show relevant equations assumption and variables. The offer’s submittal should reflect the ability to interpret and deliver the solicitation’s specific technical requirements of paragraph SD-02. The offeror’s submittal does not supersede the requirements of the technical specification.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s design ability and assess the offeror’s capability of meeting the specification requirements by reviewing General Arrangement drawings and calculations for the 100/40 Ton Molten Metal Handling Bridge Crane required by the solicitation.

- Submission of error free drawings that contain all of the solicitation arrangement drawing requirements would be rated acceptable. Submissions that fail to provide all stated drawing views and dimensions to present the required information or contain major deviations from specification (without explanation) in the submission may be viewed less favorably.

- Submission of error free calculations that clearly demonstrate the understanding of the solicitation calculation requirements and CMAA 70 requirements would be rated acceptable. Submissions that fail to include all stated calculations, indicate deviations from specification (without explanation) or contain major errors in the submission may be viewed less favorably.

(5) Factor 5 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, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three 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 should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three 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 must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) 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 subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor 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 two pages.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. 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 should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board 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 upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential 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. The board 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. 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) 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.

M2 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The contract(s) will be awarded based on Best Value to the Government using Source Selection Procedures. It is the Government’s intention to award up to six (6) contracts to comprise the WHEMAC.

a. Costs associated with participating in the pre-proposal site visit or responding to the RFP will not be compensated.

b. All proposals shall be evaluated against the established criteria set forth herein.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 significantly more important than price.

6. 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.

7. Offerors are advised that, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f), the Government intends to award based on initial proposals; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions should they be deemed necessary.

Consequently, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

After evaluating all proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the contracting officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. As a result, 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.

The Price Proposal Sheet (Attachment J2) requires a price for two line items. The Government will evaluate price based on the total price cited on the Price Proposal Sheet.

Note: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(3) an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that a lack of balanced pricing in a proposal poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)

CRANE AE-23

CRANE AE-27

CRANE AE-27