N6247314R0003_-_Amendment_0002.pdf

ACQR3200874PR

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

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC) SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND RENOVATION OF HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED WORK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE NAVFAC SOUTHWEST AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING BUT NOT

LIMITED TO CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEW MEXICO

The purpose of this amendment is to amend the Basic Contract RFP as show n beginning on page 2.

The date and time for receipt of proposals remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Feb-2014

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N62473-14-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Jan-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Feb-2014

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACTS CORE

CODE RAQ20

1220 PACIFIC HWY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

N62473 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N62473-14-R-0003

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 0002

MACC BASIC CONTRACT RFP:

PART 1 – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS - SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Description of Changed Information:

In the Section 00210, “Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors,” Evaluation Factor 1 (Experience) is changed as follows:

1. Changed the title “Additional submission requirements” to “Additional minimum submission requirements.”

2. Changed the third bullet under the additional minimum submission requirements to delete the words “at least” and add the words “(and only 1)” as follows:

From: Submit at least one (1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of Digital

Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems.

To: Submit one (1) (and only 1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of

Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems.

3. Changed the proposal submission requirements to add the words “one (1) project for” to clarify that only one project may be submitted to demonstrate subcontractor experience as follows:

From: Experience of a subcontractor submitted to demonstrate construction experience other than the installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems will not be considered.

To: Experience of a subcontractor submitted to demonstrate construction experience other than the one

(1) project for installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems will not be considered.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00210

BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

1. BASIS OF AWARD

Selection of contractor(s) will be accomplished using Source Selection Procedures on the basis of Best Value to the Government, considering price and non-price factors. Interested firms are expected to review the RFP and participate in a pre-proposal conference and site visit (if conducted), provide proposed prices for the initial project, and provide proposal information requested to evaluate their technical and past performance factors.

The best value continuum source selection process to be used for this acquisition is the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) process as described in FAR 15.101-2.

The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposals with the lowest evaluated prices. No more than five (5) awards will be made. In order to permit efficient competition, the following methodology will be utilized. Proposals will be initially screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Government will then evaluate the non-price factors of the ten (10) lowest priced proposals in accordance with the criteria of acceptability set forth in the solicitation. However, the Government, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review under this methodology. If at least five (5) of those proposals are technically acceptable, and if the prices are determined to be reasonable in the price evaluation, the Government will make an award to those five (5) Offerors with the lowest price. If there are fewer than five (5) technically acceptable proposals, groups of five (5) proposals will continue to be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until up to five (5) offers have been determined to be technically acceptable. Accordingly, under this methodology, the non-price factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Government. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both non-price and price) for the purpose of establishing a competitive range. Proposals shall be provided to the evaluators without any identification of prices or any rank order of prices.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Offerors should not assume that they would be contacted or afforded the opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposal. 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.

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. Each non-price factor will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

The Government intends to award between three and five multiple award construction contracts resulting from this solicitation. Award of the basic multiple award construction contracts will be made to those responsible Offerors with the lowest price technically acceptable proposals based on the evaluation factors in this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award up to five contracts under this solicitation or to award only the initial project

(Proposed Task Order 0001) identified in the RFP as a single-action contract. The Government reserves the right not to award the Proposed Task Order 0001. The Government reserves the right to substitute or add other projects that meet the scope of the MACC.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award up to five (5) contracts to the Offerors submitting the lowest price technically acceptable offers.

Successful Offerors will receive the following contract awards:

The lowest price technically acceptable Offeror receives award with a minimum guarantee and the initial project, if the Government chooses to award it. Second, third, and any additional selected contractor will each receive award with a minimum guarantee, and selection will be based on the same criteria as the first selection.

2. DEFINITIONS

DEFICIENCY: A material failure of a proposal to meet a solicitation requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

ACCEPTABLE FEATURES: A proposed method or technique in the proposal that addresses solicitation requirements such that no further explanation or documentation is necessary.

PAST PERFORMANCE: Relates to how well an Offeror has performed; e.g., the quality of work accomplished, schedule compliance, customer satisfaction.

EXPERIENCE: Pertains to work performed by an Offeror, within the prescribed timeframe, which is the same or similar to the work that may be ordered under this contract in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Experience is distinct from past performance (how well an Offeror has performed).

PROJECT: A design-build or design-bid-build construction activity or task, with a single starting point and a single ending point.

COMBINED PROJECT(S): Projects with multiple starting and ending points, performed under separate task orders, delivery orders, or multiple contracts combined in a single description. No credit will be given for work performed under MACC/IDIQ contracts in the aggregate or for multiple projects completed under more than one task/delivery order.

RENOVATION/REPAIR PROJECT TYPES: Refers to projects where the work replaces part of, or an entire, existing HVAC system, or adds to/expands an existing HVAC system.

NEW CONSTRUCTION: Refers to installing a brand new HVAC system where none exists; this includes when the brand new system ties-in to an existing central plant system.

100% COMPLETE: The facility/work is completely constructed and ready for the intended use.

OFFEROR: Refers to the Contractor submitting the proposal as Offeror, including joint ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Offeror’s name cited on the SF 1442 and any other part of the proposal, the SF 1442 is the conclusive document in determining the Offeror who is submitting the proposal.

LEAD DESIGN FIRM: Applies to the Offeror’s primary design consultant firm(s) and any in-house lead designer(s).

JOINT VENTURE (JV): A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together.

FIVE-YEAR PERIOD: The prescribed timeframe for this solicitation that refers to the period of time for which projects may be submitted for experience or past performance. The five-year period is calculated by counting back five years from the initial RFP issuance date.

DESIGN-BUILD: Refers to combining design and construction in a single contract with one contractor. Design-build projects require design of the project by a licensed professional (i.e. engineer, architect). Projects that only require shop drawing level effort are not design-build projects.

DESIGN-BID-BUILD: Refers to the traditional delivery method where design and construction are sequential and contracted for separately with two contracts and two contractors.

SELF-PERFORM: Refers to performing relevant major trade work in-house without subcontractors. This does not include administrative or management functions. Relevant major trade work is that which is the same or similar to the work that may be ordered under this contract.

PAGE: Refers to one printed side of a piece of paper. (For example, 5 pieces of paper printed on both sides would result in 10 pages of narrative.)

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

According to FAR 15.304, the evaluation factors that apply to this acquisition are a part of this RFP and are evaluated individually. The applicable evaluation factors and submission requirements that establish the requirements of acceptability are identified below.

a. Price Factor

PRICE – Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror (see definition) shall complete and submit (in a sealed envelope) the following in the order shown below under Tab “Price” of the original proposal only.

- Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award)

- Bid Bond

With regard to price as shown on the SF 1442, the only Contract Line Item that Offerors are to complete is Line Item 0002 of Section 00010 Solicitation for Proposed Task Order 0001.

Failure to submit a Bid Bond conforming to the requirements of the solicitation may result in an Offeror's proposal being rejected as unacceptable.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The price proposal for Proposed Task Order 0001 will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal. The following techniques will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

- Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government estimate.

In addition, one or more of the following techniques may also be utilized:

- Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

- Comparison of proposed prices with resources proposed.

- Obtain information/reports from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other outside agencies as required.

b. Non-price Factors

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE (See definition)

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit Exhibit “A” (Construction Experience Project Data Sheet) under Tab “Exhibits A & B.”

Submit five (5) 100% complete construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract.

For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.

Projects may include, but are not limited to: Boiler/Chiller plants; Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control System; HVAC equipment energy optimization; commissioning and retro-commissioning; distribution systems including supply and return air systems, ventilation and exhaust systems, steam, glycol, medical gas, refrigerant, heating hot water and chilled water distribution, associated terminal devices, heat recovery equipment, heat exchangers, sound attenuation, insulation, and associated appurtenances; energy supply including oil, gas, steam, heating hot and chilled water distribution systems;

other Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems and equipment including special cooling and humidity control, dust and fume collectors, air purifiers, paint booth ventilation systems; and system testing and balancing.

Additional minimum submission requirements:

- Submit at least two (2) projects with a construction cost of $1,500,000 or above.

- Submit at least one (1) project demonstrating self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization.

- Submit one (1) (and only 1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of Digital

Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems.

- At least one (1) of the self-performed projects shall demonstrate experience with design-build.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is 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.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Exhibit “A”) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

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, at least one relevant project shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. If no shared project experience is demonstrated, proposals that fail to submit at least one relevant project for each partner in the Joint Venture will be rated Unacceptable. 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/LLC/LTD firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. Regarding any such submitted project, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate experience with the installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems. The Offeror shall provide an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. Regarding any such submitted project, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the subcontractor’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

Experience of a subcontractor submitted to demonstrate construction experience other than the one (1) project for installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems will not be considered.

The basis of evaluation will be the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing five (5) relevant construction projects as defined in the proposal submission requirements above. 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.

Proposals which submit fewer than five (5) relevant construction projects or fail to demonstrate experience as required above will be rated Unacceptable.

Any project submitted which is (1) in excess of the five (5) required projects, (2) combined projects (see definition), (3) not 100% complete within the five-year period specified (see definition), (4) outside the scope of work of this solicitation, or (5) outside the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000, will not be evaluated.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of its proposal, (e.g., the relevance of the Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit evaluations under Tab “Exhibits A & B” immediately following each of the projects shown on Exhibit “A” to which they pertain. For each project submitted in Factor 1, use one of the following formats to demonstrate past performance:

- For commercial projects, submit a past performance questionnaire (PPQ) (Exhibit “B”). Ensure correct/current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors are required to provide PPQs with their proposal.

- For Government projects, submit a copy of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor

Appraisal Support System (CCASS) performance evaluation, for construction. If no CCASS evaluation exists, the Offeror may submit a PPQ; however, the government will not consider any PPQ submitted for a project if an official CCASS evaluation exists in the government database.

If you are submitting a project your firm performed as a subcontractor, include the name and POC for the prime contractor.

If the rating received was less than Satisfactory, provide a brief description of the problem(s) resulting in this evaluation and what corrective action, if any, was taken. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations for all projects combined shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) in total.

Past performance information submitted for projects other than those listed in Factor 1 will not be considered.

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information and an accessible point of contact (POC) with a correct phone number may be rated as Unacceptable.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1

– Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. 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 Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

Offerors will be rated as acceptable when PPQs/CCASS evaluations and information obtained from any other sources reflect, at a minimum, a satisfactory level of performance considering the following: the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior; commitment to customer satisfaction; record of conforming to specifications and applicable law (i.e., Davis Bacon Wage Determinations/Safety Standards, etc.); quality of workmanship; record of recommending and/or implementing innovative approaches and/or technologies;

record of controlling costs; safety performance record; and adherence to schedules.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)

(2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

FACTOR 3: SAFETY

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall use Exhibit “C” (Safety Data & Narrative) to submit (under Tab “Exhibit C”) the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR and DART rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years [2010, 2011, and 2012], submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three

(3) year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that adversely affected the EMR should be addressed as part of this element.

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

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years [2010, 2011, and 2012], submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U. S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). If you cannot submit an OSHA DART rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that adversely affected the OSHA DART rate data should be addressed as part of this element.

3) Technical Approach for Safety:

Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate the safety performance of potential subcontractors, as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Also, describe how the Offeror will ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record and the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Offeror’s Technical Approach for Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices. An EMR greater than 1.0 is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates.

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

The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices. A DART Rate of 3.00 or higher is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates.

3) Technical Approach for Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine that the safety performance of potential subcontractors will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors and that the Offeror’s plan will monitor and ensure safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. Offerors who fail to address either of these items will be rated Unacceptable.

FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Proposed Task Order (PTO) 0001 RFP requires the installation of a new HVAC system in an existing new building. The project requires USGBC LEED Silver certification. Exhibit “D” (LEED Checklist) already includes the credits related to the construction of the new building (for a total of 21 points).

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a completed Exhibit “D” (LEED Checklist) (under Tab “Exhibit D”) specifying the remaining LEED points to be achieved for PTO 0001, and include a description of the proposed method of achieving each credit. No description of methodology is required for the credits already included.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed points and methodology to meet LEED Silver certification. A proposal that demonstrates the ability to achieve LEED Silver certification will be rated Acceptable. A minimum of 50 total points (including the 21 points already included, as described above) is required to attain LEED Silver certification.

A proposal that fails to demonstrate how each proposed credit will be achieved or that fails to achieve the minimum total points required for LEED Silver certification will be rated Unacceptable.

EXHIBITS FOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED AS SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS

ON THE FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES WEBSITE AT http://www.fbo.gov.

(End of Summary of Changes)