N6247024R0062 0009.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

See Block 14 Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

140 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Jun-2025

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 N6247024R0062

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Mar-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

12-Jun-2025

CODE

COMNAVFACSYSCOM 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:

N6247024R0062

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0009

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend the proposal due date.

2. Respond to PPIs.

3. Revise the Specifications.

4. Revise the Drawings.

5. Provide attachments.

6. Revise the Solicitation.

7. Revise FAR 52.211-12

1. The proposal due date is extended from 2:00 PM Norfolk, VA local time, Wednesday, 25 June 2025 to

2:00 PM Norfolk, VA local time, Monday, 30 June 2025.

2. PPI Responses

PPI

NO.

REFERENCE

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Page Section Para

737 S-579

C4 Note

Note 2 states that the contractor is to price additional row of tiebacks within base bid. The tieback design loads table on drawing SC151 indicates three elevations (rows) of tiebacks to be installed. Is the additional row already included within the three elevations provided? If the additional row is a fourth row, at what elevation is it to be installed and at what design load?

Delete Note 2 from C4/S-579.

The requirement for pricing an additional (contingent) row of tiebacks has been removed.

V-202 & V-

These (2) drawings seem to have multiple layers of information flattened upon one another and conflicts, so it makes it very difficult to read. Please fix the information on these (2) drawings and provide revised sheets.

See Amendment detail below.

SD104,

SD105,

SD106,

ET104,

ET105,

ET106,

E-002 n/a n/a

Drawings SD104, SD105, SD106, ET104, ET105, and ET106 indicate Telecommunications Line 7 (TELE 7)conflicts with several elements of work. The duct that is shown in the plans is shown routed north of support of excavation sheet piling and would undermine several elements. As an example, drawing ET104 indicates TELE 7 (2+75 to 3+00) outside of the sheeting limits per SD104 sheet notes #4 & #5 and potentially conflicting with an existing mooring bollard foundation under an exterior concrete slab. Similar conflicts exist on drawings SD105, SD106, ET105, and ET106. Please modify Telecommunications Line 7 (TELE 7) routing or confirm construction preference routing adjustments per E- 002 Electrical General Note #16 & Electrical General Ductbank Note #1 will allowed, but design required routing adjustments will be considered a change.

Limits of excavation/temporary sheeting shown are approximate and will be adjusted based on field verified existing conditions and the Contractor's selected excavation support system. The routing of ductbanks shown are for bidding purposes (quantity, length, depth). The Contractor shall coordinate the routing of the ductbank with the excavation support system. As indicated on the contract drawings, adjustments in the ductbank routing and duct configurations may be made to deconflict actual field conditions.

Sheet S-

Plan sheet S-050, note 4.C.1 states the live load for the cofferdam construction surcharge is 300 PSF for the South Wall and 1,000 PSF for the East and West Walls. Please provide the lateral load versus depth for the construction surcharge loads. This information is required to evaluate the equipment surcharge to compare to the surcharge used in the design of the cofferdam.

See Detail A3/S-904 and sheet legend.

MF-105 Note 10

What are the requirements for working in this building? Are there any special materials required in this Nuclear building? What elevation is this Junction box? Are lifts required? Can you provide a measurement for estimating purposes?

(1) A NAVSEA escort is required while working in Building 1475.

(2) No special materials are required for working in Building 1475.

(3) The Contractor is to locate the existing junction box within Building 1475. The exact location of the junction box is not known per field investigations but the designer has been informed that it is stationed near the staircase leading out of the refueling tunnel into Building 1475.

(4) Assume the junction box is step ladder accessible and a lift is not required.

(5) The estimated distance between the ceiling-mounted junction box within the tunnel to the existing junction box in Building 1475 is 110 feet.

Price Proposa l Form, Amend ment

M

Please confirm that Line Item 0001M is to include PFAS treatment.

001M does not contain PFAS treatment and all treatment is to be included in line item 007.

l Form, Amend ment

G/00 01M

Please confirm that 'construction dewatering' and 'Site Dewatering Well System' are two different operations.

Also, please define what is considered 'construction dewatering'.

001G is for the initial procurement, construction, and testing of dewatering treatment system. 001M is for the monthly cost associated with operating any site related dewatering to include but not limited to the dewatering wells and treatment system.

S579 C4, S050 Note 5.F.3.f

31 52 01 2.8

Specification 31 52 01, 2.8 states, "Tiebacks shall be installed to the diameter and lengths noted on Drawings..."Drawing S-579, Detail C4 notes the wet well tieback is a 12" drilled and grouted tieback, however, that dimension appears relative to the drill hole diameter and not the bar diameter. Drawing S-050, Note 5.F.3.f Grouted Tiebacks provides allowable capacities and the unbonded and bonded lengths at each elevation as well as estimated south wall deflections, however, no specific bar diameter is provided. Please provide the bar diameter for all tiebacks to be installed in the wet well including any changes in bar diameter based on the installation elevation.

Tieback reinforcement to be designed by the Contractor.

S-050 C4 n/a

Drawing S-050, C4, Note 2 directs Contractor to price additional row of tiebacks within Base Bid. Please provide design details of the additional row of tiebacks including but not limited to bar diameter; elevation of installation; bonded and unbonded lengths; design loads; allowable capacity; and estimated deflection.

Delete Note 2 from C4/S-579.

The requirement for pricing an additional (contingent) row of tiebacks has been removed.

Amend ment 0004 n/a n/a

Amendment 0004 added 26 20 01,

3.5.5 Transformer Tests, yet 3.5.5

Phase Rotation Test already exists.

Please confirm Amendment 0004 should have added 3.5.6 Transformer Tests.

Confirmed, Amendment 0004 should have added 3.5.6 Transformer Tests.

n/a 31 52 01 3.4.1

Specification section 31 52 01, 3.4.1 requires testing undisturbed samples for permeability, however, 31 52 01, 2.7 does not list an acceptance criteria for permeability. We request eliminating testing for permeability as part of the acceptance criteria, or an acceptance criteria be added to 31 52 01, 2.7.

The requirement for permeability testing has been removed. See Amendment 0009.

S-050 Joints Note (b)

Note states to clean surfaces of horizontal and vertical construction joints of laitance to expose clean coarse aggregate solidly embedded in mortar mix. Just prior to depositing concrete, thoroughly clean and wet surface of construction joint. These provisions must also apply when concrete is placed against existing concrete. Note

(c) In addition, when concrete is placed against existing concrete, adequately prepare surface by roughening to 1/4" amplitude and apply bonding agent.

Due to several limiting factors, including limited access areas and potential of damage to resteel coating and waterstop, can the KTR use alternate means of cleaning to satisfy the requirements of ACI 318?

Acceptable means of cleaning/variations to specified requirements may be submitted at time of work.

l Form

Please confirm that Line Item 001M does not include PFAS treatment, and all PFAS treatment is to be included in Line Item 0007.

001M does not contain PFAS treatment and all treatment is to be included in line item 007.

31 52

All piling on the project require pre-drilling or probing to check for obstructions prior to installing the production pile. Specification 31 52 01 does not specifically require pre-drilling for the jet grout operation.

Please clarify is pre-drilling is required for jet grouting.

Propose in accordance with the solicitation.

S-050 31 52

3.3.1 .1.c

Plan sheet S-050 note 5.4.b indicates planned wet well cofferdam deflections from 2.0 to 2.3 inches. Specification 31 52 01 section 3.3.1.1.c states that the top of the pile at elevation of cut-off be no more than 2 inches horizontally . . .

from the location indicated. There is no tolerance provided for pile taper, which would influence the pile location at the bottom of the excavation. There are no tolerances indicated for the the wet well wall or floor dimensions. The wet well walls and bottom slab are poured against the wet well cofferdam piling and therefore their overall dimensions are controlled by the location of the wet well cofferdam. Has the design location of the wet well cofferdam included the planned 2.0 to 2.3 inch deflection?

which would reduce the wall and bottom slab dimension? If the pile is perfectly plumb, and the top of pile is 2 inches to the inside of the structure, this would also reduce the wall and slab dimensions. Combining the 2 inch pile tolerance and the 2 inch deflection would reduce the interior cofferdam dimensions by 4 inches. What pile taper is acceptable? Standard taper is 1/8 inch per foot of pile. 1/8 inch per foot of pile at 65 ft from top of pile to bottom of excavation equates to 8-1/8", which would reduce the wall and slab dimensions. Or is it up to the Contractor to increase the size of the wet well cofferdam to account for tolerances in the pile installation to meet the minimum wet well wall and slab dimensions?

The 2in horizontal deflection is to remain. The plumbness of the wall is crucial to the dimensions and location of the wet well within the tight site of the dry dock-adjacent area. Per specification 31 52 01 3.3, Preliminary site work, Piling Installation, as well as Placing and Driving is to be coordinated for proper interlock, sealing, and correct alignment. The use of temporary walls, templates, and guide structures is to be anticipated for this work in the criteria specified. The location of the cofferdam is not up to the Contractor during installation.

Any deviations or issues will be coordinated with the Contracting Officer at time of work.

S-251 n/a B1

To place the outside concrete walls for the wet well as shown in the placement sequence on Drawing S-251 detail B1, it is necessary to remove the cross brace above the next consecutive placement (ie. we remove the brace above and then we place the wall section up to the next CTJ). Please confirm it is the intent of the placement sequence to remove the cross brace above the next consecutive placement prior to placing each concrete wall section.

Yes, see Note 4 in referenced detail B1/S-251.

EP-103 n/a n/a

Drawing EP-103, Keynote #5 indicates new ductbank will tie into Building 407 tunnel and to coordinate building entrance with existing ductbanks and infrastructure. Please provide Building 215 and 407 foundation or utility tunnel reference drawings for Contractor to coordinate new ductbank.

Drawings for Buildings 215 and 407 foundations and tunnels have been added to the reference drawings. See Amendment 0009.

3. Specification Revisions

SECTION 01 32 17.00 20 COST-LOADED NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES (NAS)

1.10.1.8 Adverse Weather Lost Work Days

DELETE and REPLACE with:

“Use the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Summary of Monthly Normals report to obtain the historical average number of days each month with precipitation, using a nominal 30-year, greater than

0.10 inch precipitation amount parameter, as indicated on the Station Report for the NOAA location Wakefield, Virginia as the basis for establishing a "Weather Calendar" showing the number of anticipated non-workdays for each month due to adverse weather, in addition to Sundays and all Federal Holidays as non-work days. The Contractor must also include in the schedule an allowance for one Hurricane Condition of Readiness (COR) Condition TWO and ONE COR Condition THREE per year, as described in Section 01 50 00.00 22 TEMPORARY

CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS.

Assign the Weather Calendar to any activity that could be impacted by adverse weather. The Contracting Officer will issue a modification in accordance with the contract clauses, giving the Contractor a no cost time only extension for the difference of days between the anticipated and actual adverse weather delay if the number of actual adverse weather delay days exceeds the number of days anticipated for a twelve month period in which the delay occurs and the adverse weather delayed activities are on the longest path to contract completion in the period when delay occurred. A lost workday due to weather conditions is defined as a day in which the Contractor cannot work at least 50 percent of the day on the impacted activity. Impacts resulting from adverse weather must be documented in Narrative Report for the month that it occurred.

Make changes to P6 project calendars to reflect as-built conditions where work occurred where originally anticipated as non-work days, and where work did not occur (lost work day).”

1.10.1.9 Anticipated Restricted Delays

DELETE and REPLACE with:

“Unless otherwise noted or defined in Section 01 14 00.00 22 WORK RESTRICTIONS, include 47 non-working days for the project duration, as stated in Section 01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK, Paragraph 1.10(f), for instances where base access is not permitted or where work areas are temporarily not accessible for security reasons which causes a delay in the work. Use Anticipated Restricted Delays as basis for establishing a "Security Calendar" showing the number of anticipated non-workdays for each month due to anticipated restrictions, in addition to anticipated adverse weather, Sundays and all Federal Holidays as non-work days. Assign the Security Calendar to any activity that could be impacted by restriction delays. The Contracting Officer will issue a modification in accordance with the contract clauses, giving the Contractor a no cost time extension for the difference of days between the anticipated and actual lost work days if the number of actual restriction delay days exceeds the number of anticipated for a twelve month period in which the delay occurs and the restriction delayed activities are critical to contract completion. A lost workday due to restriction delay is defined as a day in which the Contractor cannot work at least 50 percent of the day on the impacted activity.

Impacts resulting from restriction delays must be documented in Narrative Report for the month that it occurred.

Make changes to P6 project calendars to reflect as-built conditions where work occurred where originally anticipated as non-work days, and where work did not occur (lost work day).”

SECTION 31 52 01 WET WELL EXCAVATION SUPPORT

3.4.1 Jet Grouting Quality Control

DELETE and REPLACE with:

“At a minimum, obtain 5 undisturbed samples of jet grout improved soil to confirm strength, modulus, and unit weight meet the minimum requirements specified”

SPECIFICATION ATTACHMENTS

ADD APPENDIX A2 – ADDITIONAL REFERENCE RECORD DRAWINGS that accompanies this Amendment.

4. Drawing Revisions

DELETE and REPLACE the following drawings as of June 4, 2025. These drawings accompany this Amendment.

DRAWING

NO.

REVISION

NO.

NAVFAC

DWG NO.

DRAWING TITLE

V-202 1 14144776 DRY DOCK 3 ELEVATION – HEAD WALL

V-203 1 14144777 DRY DOCK 3 ELEVATION – NORTH WALL

SD106 1 14144866 STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION PLAN – AREA 106

SD152 1 14144872 STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION PLAN - PUMPWELL 3

LEVEL 1

S-579 2 14145053 WET WELL 3 CONCRETE SECTIONS AND DETAILS - 1

OF 4

5. Attachments

• Attachment AL - 1806701Amend0009-DWG

• Attachment AM - 1806701Amend0009-SPC-APPENDIX A2

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Jun-2025 02:00 PM to 30-Jun-2025 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

4.2 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs)

4.3 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES (SAM.GOV)

5. INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

6. ATTACHMENTS: MAY BE LOCATED ON CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A – PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY LOG

ATTACHMENT B – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACHMENT C – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

ATTACHMENT D – HISTORICAL SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

ATTACHMENT E – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

ATTACHMENT F – INDIVIDUAL SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

ATTACHMENT G – PRICE PROPOSAL FORM AMEND0002

ATTACHMENT H – PIEE SOLICITATION VENDOR ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS

ATTACHMENT I – APPROVED IDENTITY PROOFING DOCUMENTS

ATTACHMENT J – CRITERIA FOR DENYING ACCESS TO NAVY INSTALLATIONS

ATTACHMENT K - 2025 RIOCC CVS SPONSOR NNSY TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT L - 2025 RIOCC ODP DBIDS

ATTACHMENT M - SECNAV 5512 EXP 2027

ATTACHMENT N - DIRECTIONS TO PWD_ROICC TRAILER

ATTACHMENT O – SITE VISIT LOG

ATTACHMENT P – SITE VISIT HANDOUT

ATTACHMENT Q – LANT JA HSQ TECHNOLOGIES_REDACTED

ATTACHMENT R – LANT JA LIMITORQUE_REDACTED

ATTACHMENT S – 1806701 AMEND0002DWG

ATTACHMENT T – DD3 RECORD OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

ATTACHMENT U – 1806701Amend0003-SPC-APPENDIX A1 ATTACHMENT V – 1806701Amend0003-SPC-APPENDIX I ATTACHMENT W – 1806701Amend0003-SPC-APPENDIX K ATTACHMENT X – 1806701Amend0003 - DWG ATTACHMENT Y – DD3 FF&E Package ATTACHMENT Z – DD3 SID Package ATTACHMENT AA – Site Visit Photos ATTACHMENT AB – Davis-Bacon Act WD VA20250001 ATTACHMENT AC – Davis-Bacon Act WD VA20250161 ATTACHMENT AD – Davis-Bacon Act WD VA20250209 ATTACHMENT AE – Award Fee Plan ATTACHMENT AF – DD3 EPA Schedule.

ATTACHMENT AG - 1806701Amend0004dwg ATTACHMENT AH - 18906701Amend0003-SPC-APPENDIX A2

ATTACHMENT AI – MIL-DTL-29229B

ATTACHMENT AJ - 1806701Amend0005-DWG ATTACHMENT AK – Utility Bridge

ATTACHMENT AL - 1806701Amend0009-DWG ATTACHMENT AM - 1806701Amend0009-SPC-APPENDIX A2

1. GENERAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.1.1 This acquisition is being solicited on an unrestricted basis, with Full and Open Competition.

1.1.2 The NAICS code for this procurement is 237990 and the size standard is

$45,000,000.

1.1.3 In accordance with DFARS 236.204(v), the magnitude of construction for this project is over $500,000,000.

1.1.4 This solicitation is formatted as a Request for Proposal according to FAR Part 15.

This method permits evaluation of proposals based on price competition, technical merit and other factors; permits impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors' proposals; permits discussions if necessary; and ensures selection of the source whose performance provides the best value to the Government.

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

Description of Work:

This project will include the following major components for the P1062 Dry Dock 3 Modernization: rebuilding the caisson seats with deep foundations, refurbishing the dock floor and walls, pinning the concrete floor, constructing a wet well and pump house to replace the existing pumpwell, rerouting all utilities into a new utility trench around the dock perimeter, and replacing the dry dock’s surrounding rail systems.

• Cofferdam: A temporary cofferdam at the entrance to Dry Dock 3 will be constructed to allow the contractor to perform demolition and construction under dry working conditions.

The cofferdam consists of a continuous steel pipe pile wall (SPP Wall) driven side-by-side to form a continuous wall. The wall will support approximately 40 feet of water on the riverside. The cofferdam will be constructed approximately 8 feet east of the dry dock entrance (in the river), beyond the existing timber pile supported apron. In the space between the dry dock entrance and the cofferdam, riverbed soils will be dredged and replaced with a tremie concrete slab to seal off upward water flow. In addition, composite sheet pile/concrete closure walls will be constructed on either side of the dock entrance, connecting the SPP Wall to the dock proper and therefore closing off the entrance.

• Dry Dock: The floors and walls of the dry dock will be reconstructed by initially removing all the dry dock’s existing granite blocks (ranging from 15 inches thick along the floor and up to 50 inches thick along the altars) and a minimum of 12 inches of existing concrete beneath the granite. The coping/floodwall elevation will be the entrance, will have a tie-down system to resist increased uplift demands due to higher flood events.

The dry dock’s walls and floor will be reconstructed with reinforced concrete to provide improved capacity accommodating the increased “superflood” load condition and reestablishing the 2009 FCR design blocking loads.

• Wet Well: Selective demolition of the existing below grade Pumpwell is required to accommodate the discharge piping for the Wet Well and Pump House. This includes the removal of the existing ladders, catwalks, platforms, stairs, concrete walls/slabs and fiberglass grating as required by structural work.

2. BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 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.

2.2 As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.3 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.

2.4. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors (Factors, 1, 2,3, and 4) are of equal importance to each 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-price evaluation factors) are significantly more important than price.

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

2.5. 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. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-price factors will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the non-price factors, unless corrected through discussions.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR Part 9.6 defines Contractor team arrangements. Contractor team arrangement, as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which -- (1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor; or (2) A potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent /LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the experience information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g., personnel, management, equipment that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies shall commit to the performance of this contract).

In particular, the proposal shall clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in the performance of the contract.

Vague commitments to support are likely insufficient; rather, they must demonstrate intent/manner of actual performance on the contract action being solicited.

The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team (e.g., partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) whose projects are submitted to demonstrate Construction or Design Experience. The Government will not consider any project submitted for Factor 1 if it was performed by a firm other than the Offeror and there is no supporting partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment. Additional joint venture agreements are not permitted on MAC Task Orders. Note: See specific restrictions on the use of subcontractor experience under Factor 1.

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Schedule

Factor 3 – Small Business Utilization Factor 4 – Safety

Factor 5 – 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-price evaluation factors is the technical factors Factor 1

Corporate Experience, Factor 2 Schedule, Factor 3 Small Business Utilization, and Factor 4 Safety are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment 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-price evaluation factors) are significantly more important than price.

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

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor

(a) Non-price Factors:

Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) for each construction project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment C and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment C and all other information provided on other than Attachment C will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment C; however, Attachment C for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages or, two (2) double-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Attachment C submittals that do not comply with these requirements will not be evaluated. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

1. Construction Experience: Submit up to a maximum of five (5) construction projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to this project and substantially completed (at least 75%) within the last 15 years that demonstrate the Offeror’s experience. Similar projects include large waterfront facilities such as dry docks, piers, bulkheads, wharves, quay walls, bridges or water-retaining structures. At least one project must be valued at $100 million or more. If the Offeror submits more than five (5) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first five (5) projects submitted and disregard any other project information. The construction projects submitted must collectively demonstrate experience in all three (3) of the following individual items. All individual items do not have to be within a single project scope.

a. New construction of shoring systems or combi-wall systems to construct in-water structures

b. Construction of waterfront utility systems for ship berthing or other waterfront operations

c. Deep excavation projects (e.g. wet wells)

Failure to demonstrate experience in all individual items shall be considered a deficiency.

A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

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 shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. If a project was performed by a JV, and not all partners from that JV are on the JV proposed for this contract, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV member offering on this contract and shall not include work performed by the JV as a whole.

The JV member proposed for this contract shall specifically address field work performed by that JV member including field staffing and direct field work oversight. The JV member proposed for this contract shall also address home office management performed by that JV member including the number/percentage of employees provided for the overall contract by the JV members as well as the overall percentage of work performed by the JV member. The Offeror shall also submit a SIGNED copy of the Joint Venture agreement indicating the proposed participation of each Joint Venture member. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. The Offeror MAY NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor unless specialized subcontractor experience is stated as acceptable. Failure to submit this information may result in a lower rating.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction 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 for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered.

Proposals demonstrating experience self-performing relevant features of work may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate self-performance.

Factor 2 Schedule

Project Schedule Narrative: The “Offeror” shall provide a narrative limited to ten (10) single-sided pages or, five (5) double sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. The following shall be addressed:

Based upon a total contract duration of 1825 days and an assumed award date of 12 January 2026 and Notice To Proceed for Full site access of 8 September 2026, at a minimum, clearly identify the proposed dates for the following:

a. Ordering and delivery of long lead materials impacting the critical path

b. Start of in-water work and completion of the cofferdam construction

c. Start and completion date for Dry Dock basin dewatering

d. Start and completion of testing of groundwater dewatering treatment system

e. Start and completion of groundwater dewatering

f. Demolition and construction completion of the wet well structure.

g. Dry Dock basin demolition and installation of precast panels.

h. Cofferdam removal and caisson testing.

1. Schedule: Provide a project schedule using P6 software. Submit the PDF of the full schedule output with the proposal submittal in PIEE Solicitation Module and the native (.xer) file via email to daniel.r.rocha2.civ@us.navy.mil prior to the submission deadline. The proposed project schedule need not be cost loaded; however, shall serve as the basis for the Offeror’s price proposal. The above completion dates in item (3)(i). shall be reflected in this schedule along with major construction activities, milestones, and critical path items. The schedule shall be on 11”x17” pages, single-sided, and there is no page limit.

NOTES:

• [REMOVED]

• Narrative and schedule are not allowed to propose variances from Contract requirements.

For example, Offerors are not allowed to propose contractual conditions that shift schedule risk to the Government or propose limitations on the ability of the Government to properly administer the contract.

• Failure to address any of the submission requirements will result in a deficiency.

• The assumed award date is stated for proposal evaluation purposes only and does not infer or guarantee that an award will be made by that date.

The Offeror's proposed construction completion dates, project schedule, and narratives will be evaluated to ensure timely completion of the project within the dates specified. The evaluation will consider how well the Offeror understands the major construction activities, task predecessors, and critical path items to execute the project.

Construction duration that meets the duration specified may be given more favorable consideration.

Completion dates that are ahead of the dates specified should not be provided and will not be considered.

The project narrative may show or explain the methodologies or innovative approaches that will be implemented to accelerate delivery, while fully mitigating risks to project execution and maintaining quality of construction.

Proposals that identify innovative approaches and lessons learned from previous completed projects that will be applied to this project to mitigate schedule risk and recover schedule time in the event of project delays may be rated more favorably.

Factor 3, Small Business Utilization and Participation

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to Small Business (SB) concerns, including Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), Veteran- Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and other small business concerns. Further, it is the policy of the Government that such concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance.

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns and the proposed small business participation commitment for this requirement. The offeror is required to demonstrate its previous commitment to SBs through its record of past utilization of SBs and the level of commitment to small business if awarded a contract under this solicitation.

All Offerors (large, non-profits, AND small businesses) shall use Attachment D (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, shall be included on Attachment D. Failure to include each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, on Attachment D, or the failure to fully complete Attachment D for each project may result in a deficiency. Only complete Attachment D. Information provided in a different format and/or on a form created by the offeror will not be evaluated. Attachments or addendums to Attachment D will not be evaluated. Offerors are permitted to expand portions of the form, as needed, to provide sufficient response. Instructions regarding how to complete Attachment D are included at the beginning of the attachment.

All Offerors (large, non-profits, AND small businesses) shall use Attachment E (Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) to submit the following required information for evaluation of this factor:

To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify by name the subcontractors that will be used to support each small business category, including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSBs. Identify the type and complexity of product/service to be subcontracted, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, joint venture agreement, mentor protégé agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) with each subcontractor.

� If subcontractors are not identified by name, offerors shall provide a detailed explanation why subcontractors are not identified. If firm written commitments with SBs are not in place, offerors shall provide an explanation and rationale on the ability to achieve the proposed participation. (See Attachment E, paragraph 5)

� If a LB offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance. SBs intending to 100% self-perform are not required to provide an explanation. (See Attachment E, paragraph 6)

To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 20% (this amount will be modified based on market research). Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation requirement of 20% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.

Only complete Attachment E. Information provided in a different format and/or on a form created by the offeror will not be evaluated. Attachments or addendums to Attachment E will not be evaluated.

Large business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation requirement through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation requirement through their own performance/participation as a prime as well as through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting with other small business concerns.

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

a. The extent to which the offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting

Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns, including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts. For projects submitted for Factor 1, Corporate Experience, that did not have established small business goals, consideration will be given to the utilization of the small business concerns and the degree of usage of small business relative to the total contract value.

Historical Small Business Utilization will only be evaluated if performed by the offeror.

b. The extent to which the offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses, including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB in the performance of this contract within the SBPCD.

The minimum small business participation requirement, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall meet or exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why the minimum 20% small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.

� Offerors that demonstrate a commitment to providing maximum practical opportunity to small businesses may be rated higher.

� Proposing less than 20% total small business participation requirement may result in a deficiency.

� Offerors that do not demonstrate commitment to providing maximum practical opportunity to small businesses may result in a deficiency.

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 degree to which small business concerns, including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, 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, joint venture agreements, mentor protégé agreements, written/signed letters of /commitment, etc. will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment.

� The offeror may receive a deficiency if firm commitments with subcontractors are not provided, and the offeror fails to provide a detailed explanation for how the proposed small business participation requirement will be achieved.

The offeror may be rated lower if they fail to provide a detailed explanation for why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance. (Not applicable to SBs intending to 100% self-perform or LBs and non-profits who intend to subcontract.)

Factor 4, Safety

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative as described further below. For a partnership, joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART, TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

(1) DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required, that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Dart cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝑫𝑨𝑹𝑻 𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬

Number of DART Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Enployee Labor Hours Worked

(2) TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required, that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝑻𝑪𝑹 𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬

Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Enployee Labor Hours Worked

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout the performance of the contract (to include their own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one

(1) double-sided page.

(4) The Government reserves the…