N6247020R5003 0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is issued to provide questions and answ ers in response to the solicitation.

The due date for submission of proposals remains 27 October 2020, 4 PM.

(Changes w ithin the solicitation SF33 document are noted in red w ithin this amendment.)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Oct-2020

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 N6247020R5003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Aug-2020

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 6 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

15-Oct-2020

CODE

COMMANDER NAVFAC ATLANTIC

6506 HAMPTON BLVD

NORFOLK VA 23508-1278

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247020R5003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

The following are questions received in response to the solicitation, and applicable answers.

Question 86: Regarding the following changes within Section L, Factor 1, Corporate Experience, Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors (Prime/JVs) shall provide the following:

• A maximum of five (5) projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract and completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Each project must be valued at $10 million or more.

• A maximum of three (3) projects, similar in scope and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract and completed, or substantially completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Substantially completed means that the majority of the substantive work (approximately 75% or more) is completed.

The language from Section L above seems to imply that we are now allowed to submit a total of 8 projects, but doesn’t clarify in the second bullet that the projects must be $10M or more. However, Section M still says (Any projects submitted in excess of the first five (5) listed projects will not be considered.), and they must be $10M or greater. Additionally, the provided JL8 form only includes 5 projects in the first box. Please confirm the maximum number of projects that offeror are allowed to submit?

Answer 86: A total of eight (8) projects may be submitted. Please see revised JL.8 Rev (2), attached to this amendment. Changes to Section L were made by Amendment 0003; however, applicable Section M changes were omitted. This amendment provides the appropriate changes to Section M.

Question 87: Section C states that the Government may consider a MACC awardee's withdrawal from submitting a proposal on more than 2 task order RFPs in making a decision to award option periods. If a MACC awardee is conflicted out of responding to a task order RFP based on previous work (e.g., statement of work, specifications and plans) for the project, will the Government consider the withdrawal as acceptable and not penalize the MACC awardee.

Answer 87: Rationale for a withdrawal from submitting a proposal will be taken into consideration when exercising option periods.

Question 88: L-4 General Information. In subparagraph 2 of this section the RFP (page 96 of 129) specifies the proposal format as follows: “Volume I: Non-cost (Technical Factors and Past Performance): Submit one (1) original, six (6) copies in 8-1/2 x 11 format, font size 11-12. Tables and charts can be in landscape format, font size 10.” Please clarify that “landscape format” can be a tabloid page 11”x17”.

Answer 88: No. A landscape format shall be on an 8-1/2 x 11 page.

Question 89: Based on the allowance of three additional projects, should the basis of evaluation for Factor 1 be modified to reflect a total of 8 projects? See the below citation from the amendment.

“The Government will only review the first five projects submitted in the Offeror’s proposal. Any projects submitted in excess of the first five (5) listed projects will not be considered.”

Answer 89: Refer to Q&A #86 in this amendment.

Question 90: Based on the allowance of three additional projects, should the basis of evaluation for Factor 1 be modified to reflect the unique requirements of the three additional projects cited on Page 24 of 45 ?

See the below citation from the amendment, which reflects the first five projects, and not the additional three.

“A relevant project is defined as a project that has been completed in the past 10 years as of the date of issuance of the solicitation with a value of at least $10 million, similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract.”

Answer 90: Refer to Q&A #86 in this amendment.

Question 91: Please consider extending the GCC proposal date at least two weeks after all questions have been answered.

Answer 91: There are no further extensions. Proposals are due by 4:00 PM. on 27 October 2020.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment JL.1, List of Directives

Attachment JL.2, Cost Reimbursable Direct Labor Hourly Ceiling Rates

Attachment JL.2A, Cost Reimbursable Direct Labor Hourly Ceiling Rates Build-Up Form (Tab Within Attachment

JL.2)

Attachment JL.3, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime Ratios

Attachment JL.4, Proposed Distribution of Work (REV 1)

Attachment JL.5, Indirect Ceiling Rate and Award Fee Application Form

Attachment JL.5A, Indirect Ceiling Rates Build Up Form

Attachment JL.6, Proposed Historical and Year–To-Date Indirect Rates (REV 1)

Attachment JL.6A, Service Contract Labor Standards and Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) Ceiling Labor Rates

Attachment JL.7, Cost Model for CONUS and OCONUS locations for Base and Option Years

Attachment JL.7A, Summary Cost Model for Multiple Offerors (Tab Inside Attachment Within JL.7)

Attachment JL. 8, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (REV 2)

Attachment JL.9, Historical Small Business Utilization

Attachment JL.10, Small Business Participation and Commitment Document (REV 1)

Attachment JL.11, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Attachment JL.12, Award Fee Plan

Attachment JL.13, Past Performance Questionnaire

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Safety

Factor 3 – Small Business Utilization and Participation Factor 4 – Past Performance

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that Factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 4). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 4) combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to cost.

The importance of cost will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if cost 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, cost and non-cost factors considered.

As specified in the FAR 52.215-1 “Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition” provision, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. An offer must be acceptable for the offeror to be eligible for award. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN

MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER

EVALUATION.

The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN

MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER

EVALUATION.

VOLUME I: NON-COST PROPOSAL

NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience :

(i) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates relevant corporate experience and depth of experience in performing global construction contingency/emergency recovery projects and/or new construction, renovation and repairs. 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 the number of projects permitted within the Submittal Requirements for Factor 1. Any projects submitted in excess of the permitted projects will not be considered.

For the maximum of five (5) projects identified in Section L: A relevant project is defined as a project that has been completed in the past 10 years of the date of issuance of the solicitation with a value of at least $10 million, similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract.

For the maximum of three (3) projects identified in Section L: A relevant project is defined as a project that has been completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of the solictiation.

There is no dollar threhold for these three (3) projects, but Offerors must describe how each project is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the work anticipated under this contract.

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information may be rated lower, and projects for which required and complete information is not provided may not be considered.

Offerors with relevant project experience where the Offeror and the proposed team members have previously worked together may receive a higher rating than those that have not worked together.

Offerors with relevant project experience for construction contingency/emergency recovery projects may receive a higher rating than those that do not have experience with construction contingency/emergency recovery projects.

Offerors with relevant project experience that demonstrates experience in federal cost contracting may receive a higher rating than those that do not have federal cost contracting experience.

Offerors with relevant project experience that demonstrates experience in a wide array of geographical locations may receive a higher rating than those that do not have relevant projects in a wide array of geographical locations.

Note: Corporate Experience and Past Performance presented for a subcontractor will not be evaluated unless a signed letter of commitment is provided for said subcontractor and the offeror has clearly demonstrated that the subcontractor will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract.

(2) Factor 2: Safety

(i) 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) Rate

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

The board will evaluate EMR, DART, TRC rates 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 ratings. 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 task orders under the contract, the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement, and to validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap preventions 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 proposed innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may receive more favorable consideration.

Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include bet are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) an other related databases. The Board may consider information from other sources of information available to the Government in evaluation of the EMR, DART, and TRC Rates and the narrative.

(3) Factor 3, Small Business Utilization and Participation

The Government will evaluate the realism and likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition based on the following:

• The extent to which the Offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns (including all of the various socioeconomic categories of small business, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts.

• The extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation requirement, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.

Attachment JL.9 – Historical Small Business Utilization Attachment JL.10 (REV 1) – Small Business Participation Commitment Document Attachment JL.11 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Note: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not an evaluation factor, rather it is a required submission and will be reviewed as part of the Responsibility Determination for contract award.

(4) Factor 4. Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate past performance on relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience. The Government reserves the right, but is not required to evaluate other relevant projects for which past performance is currently documented in known sources. The evaluation will consider the degree to which past performance evaluations provided by the contractor and any other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), award fee determinations, 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.);

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds

The Government will consider the relevancy of the information, the sources 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.

More favorable consideration may be given for:

-Successful performance with recent/relevant, contingency/emergency construction projects -Successful performance on recent/relevant Federal cost plus award fee contracts.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history, or whose past performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonably be assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown Confidence rating (Neutral).

Note: Past Performance presented for a subcontractor will not be evaluated unless a signed letter of commitment is provided for said subcontractor and the offeror has clearly demonstrated that the subcontractor will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract.

VOLUME II: COST PROPOSAL

Basis of Evaluation: Cost Proposal.

• Completeness- All information required under Provision L.2 of the solicitation.

• Price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

• Cost reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c).

• Cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

The Government will evaluate all aspects of the cost proposal for completeness, reasonableness, and realism. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated on the overall cost realism exhibited. Cost Realism pertains to the offeror’s ability to project costs which are reasonable and which indicate the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work anticipated under this contract. The purpose of this evaluation will be to assess if the proposed costs: (1) are reasonable for the work to be performed; (2) reflect that the offeror has a clear understanding of the requirements;

(3) are consistent with approaches, and other various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal; (4) are consistent with other cost-related information, i.e. DCAA audits, historical rates, etc., available to the Contracting Officer; and

(5) are neither excessive nor insufficient for the effort to be accomplished.

Proposed costs may be adjusted for purposes of evaluation based on the results of the cost realism evaluation to determine probable cost of performance. Offerors are reminded that for the purpose of evaluation under this solicitation, the direct and indirect rate ceilings proposed by the prime, each member of a Joint Venture arrangement and all cost reimbursable subcontractors, as provided in Attachments JL.2 and JL.5 hereto shall be proposed under the Cost Model for each respective year, and will be used for cost realism evaluation of the Cost Model.

The Government will utilize information provided in Attachment JL.4 (REV 1), Distribution of Work, to assist in determining cost reasonableness/realism. For example:

Prime Contractor performing 100% of the work – the submitted Cost Model, Attachment JL.7 will be utilized to determine cost realism/reasonableness.

JV entities will be evaluated utilizing information from Attachment JL.4 (REV 1), Distribution of Work to determine cost model percentages to be used in cost analysis as explained above.

The costs submitted for the base year and all option periods (for CONUS and OCONUS) will be evaluated in order to determine future estimated costs to the Government. The Government may reject an offer that reflects a serious lack of cost realism. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, set forth in Section L hereto, the Government will evaluate offerors’ compensation plans for professional employees. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. The use of uncompensated overtime, as defined in the FAR 52.237-10 in Section L, will also be considered in the cost realism analysis and risk assessment.

Cost Pool Information and Audit Information - The Government will also review all information provided as required in Section L of this solicitation to determine if the offerors’ accounting and billing systems are adequate for cost-reimbursable type contracts.

NOTE: THE BREADTH OF THE COST REALISM REVIEW MAY BE LIMITED TO THOSE OFFERORS

WHOSE PROPOSALS REPRESENT THE MOST LIKELY CANDIDATES FOR AWARD BASED ON

INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE INITIAL NON-COST (TECHNICAL AND PAST PERFORMANCE)

REVIEW AND RELATIVE COST CONSIDERATIONS.

(End of Summary of Changes)