Amendment 0002.pdf

ACQR5751765

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 UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND RENOVATION OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN

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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the 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 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Apr-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 N6247319R1237

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Apr-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 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 CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT CORE

CODE: CIMAR

1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

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:

21-Apr-2020

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

N6247319R1237

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

MACC RFP:

PART 1 – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS - SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section 00210, “Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors,” is revised as shown below:

1. Item 4. EVALUATION FACTORS, FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH, a. Proposal Submission Requirements, item (1) is revised to delete the reference to FAR Subpart 9.6 as follows:

DELETE:

Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative.

REPLACE WITH:

Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative.

2. Item 4. EVALUATION FACTORS, FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE, a. Proposal Submission Requirements, the third bullet under the “Additional minimum submission requirements” is corrected as follows:

DELETE:

Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with new construction or repair of an aircraft or vehicle maintenance hangar facility.

REPLACE WITH:

Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with new construction or repair of an aircraft hangar or vehicle maintenance facility.

Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management) is revised to correct the third sentence, as shown below:

DELETE:

Modify form as necessary to include all primary construction and design team members.

REPLACE WITH:

Modify form as necessary to include all primary construction team members.

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, using the tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors and price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. 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 Two Phase Design-Build procedures of FAR 36.3 will be used for this procurement. Phase One of the solicitation is in accordance with FAR Part 36.3. Phase One evaluation will result in a determination of the most highly qualified Offerors. These Offerors will be requested to submit a Phase Two proposal. The maximum number of Offerors that will be selected to submit a Phase Two proposal is approximately eight (8). Phase Two of the solicitation shall require submission of technical and price proposals by the Offerors selected in Phase One, which will be evaluated separately in accordance with Part 15. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions.

The Government anticipates three or more multiple award construction contracts. Offerors are advised that those Offerors who are selected to proceed to Phase Two are not guaranteed receipt of a contract award. Award of the basic multiple award construction contracts will be made to those responsible Offerors whose proposals conforming to the solicitation are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering past performance, technical, and price factors. The Government reserves the right to award three or more 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 design-build projects that meet the scope of the MACC. Subject to the availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to delay or cancel the award of Proposed Task Order 0001 at time of the basic contract award. If the task order is not awarded with the basic award, the guaranteed minimum will be awarded.

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all basic contract offers at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any one or all Offerors; to award the contract to other than the Offeror submitting the lowest total price; and to award contracts to three or more Offerors submitting proposals determined by the Source Selection Authority to be the most advantageous to the Government.

OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT IT IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE THAT AN AWARD MAY BE MADE

WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS OR ANY CONTACT CONCERNING THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED.

Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable price and technical terms. Offerors should not assume that they would be contacted or afforded the opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposal.

Firms participating in the pre-proposal conference and site visit (if conducted) will not be compensated for their participation.

Successful Offerors will receive the following contract awards:

The Offeror submitting the proposal, conforming to the RFP, determined to represent the Best Value 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.

STRENGTH: An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during 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).

SUSTAINABLE FEATURES: Features in the design, construction, and operation of facilities with the goal of conserving resources and minimizing adverse effects on the environment while enhancing occupant productivity, minimizing energy use, improving quality and durability of materials, increasing recycling and use of recycled products, waste reduction, etc. Relevant sustainable features are those that are the same or similar to those recognized by the Third Party Certification entities.

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.

100% COMPLETE: The facility 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.

JOINT VENTURE (JV): A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreement” or “strategic alliance,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD: The prescribed timeframe for this solicitation that refers to the period of time for which projects may be submitted for experience, past performance, or for prior support for small business. The seven-year period is calculated by counting back seven 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 separate contracts and contractors; one for an A-E contract and one for a construction 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.) Font size and font style shall be clearly legible.

NEW CONSTRUCTION: Refers to projects creating entirely new facilities (or new expansions/additions to existing facilities where a new structure and/or foundation are provided as part of the expansion/addition).

RENOVATION AND REPAIR PROJECT TYPES: Refers to projects where the work modifies existing structure. Projects that only modify supporting facilities (including but not limited to electrical, exterior utilities, sidewalks, roofing, HVAC repairs/replacements, and equipment replacements) will not be considered relevant.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

a. Phase One: Phase One shall consist of Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4. Factor 1 (Technical Approach) will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable for Factor 1, they will not be invited to participate in Phase Two. Factor 2 (Experience) and Factor 4 (Safety) when combined are of equal importance to Factor 3 (Past Performance).

b. Phase Two: Phase Two shall consist of Factors 5, 6, and 7. Factor 6 (Small Business Participation) will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable for Factor 6, they will not be considered for award of a contract. In making the best value award decision in Phase Two, Factors 2 through 5 and price will be considered. The technical factors (2, 4, and 5) are of equal importance to each other and when combined, are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3, Past Performance). The combined non-price factors are approximately equal to 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.

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 are identified below.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors for this procurement are:

Phase One:

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

Phase Two:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution - Based on Proposed Task Order 0001 Factor 6 – Small Business Participation Factor 7 – Price - Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

PHASE ONE Basis of Evaluation/Submission Requirements/Criteria Description

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed for a typical design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information under Tab “1”:

(1) Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative.

The technical approach narrative (Exhibit A) shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). The information requested in item (2) below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved Mentor-Protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). If the Offeror is proposing as a Mentor-Protégé joint venture, the Offeror shall submit the SBA approved Mentor Protégé joint venture agreement with the SBA approval letter of the Mentor Protégé agreement and any subsequent extensions.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the teaming relationships (if any) proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE (See definition)

Submit Exhibit “B” (Construction Experience Project Data Sheet) under Tab “2.”

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a maximum of seven (7) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on 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, renovation, and/or repair of commercial and institutional facilities by design-build or design-bid-build, with a construction cost of $15,000,000 or more.

Examples of relevant construction projects are construction projects similar in scope to: Airport building, office/administrative building, communications facility, vehicle maintenance facility, armories, parking garage (paved parking lots will not be considered relevant), barracks facility, prison facility, fire station, religious building, hotel, dining facility, hospital/ medical facilities, warehouse facility, school facility, and/or retail facility. For this solicitation, new construction and/or repair of single family homes will not be considered relevant.

Additional minimum submission requirements:

Submit at least one (1) relevant project with a construction cost of $50,000,000 or above.

Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with new construction (see definition).

Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with new construction or repair of an aircraft hangar or vehicle maintenance facility.

Submit at least three (3) relevant projects that demonstrate experience in design-build construction (see definition).

Note: A single project may satisfy more than one of the above minimum requirements.

Exhibit “B” must clearly address how the project meets the above requirements.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past seven (7) years (see definition) of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a construction project with a single starting point and a single ending point, 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 “B”) 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 (how the project meets the requirements listed above). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

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 shall be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of seven (7) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name and address 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 this contract.

Regarding any such submitted project, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated.

The Offeror may not utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor.

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 seven (7) projects for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the seven (7) for Construction Experience will not be considered.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate additional experience with construction projects of $50,000,000 and above, beyond the one (1) required project, may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate additional experience with design-build projects above and beyond the three (3) required projects may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience with a variety of the above examples of relevant construction project types may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience with new construction (see definition) on a variety of the above examples of relevant construction project types under a single project may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Offerors who demonstrate experience with both new construction (see definition) AND repair/renovation (see definition) within a single, relevant project(s) may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit “C”) and CCASS/ACASS/CPARS evaluations under Tab “2” immediately following each of the project data sheets to which they pertain. Submit any other past performance information under Tab “3.”

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. If there is not a completed CCASS, ACASS, or CPARS evaluation, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit “C”) for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors may use PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs, but Offerors must include these in the proposal and shall not incorporate these by reference. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact Michelle Sanders at michelle.sanders@navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) in total.

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 awards or additional information submitted will not be considered.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall submit, on Exhibit “D” (Past Performance – Small Business Utilization) under Tab “3,” the requested information for each project submitted in Factor 2 (Experience) in order to validate their prior utilization of small business subcontracting. Past performance information submitted for projects other than those submitted in Factor 2 will not be considered.

If established goals were not met on any submitted projects, an explanation detailing the reason why the goals were not met and the corrective actions taken is required.

Note: Small business Offerors shall clearly identify their small business category for each project submitted. On Exhibit “D” (Past Performance – Small Business Utilization), items (a) – (h) are for SUBCONTRACTED values only. Do not include self-performed work under these items.

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. 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 CPARS 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), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

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

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to subcontract 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), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns;

and, if applicable, Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes.

The basis of evaluation will include the extent to which the Offeror has utilized small businesses in the listed socioeconomic categories when awarding subcontracts, as well as their efforts and successes in compliance with established small business subcontracting goals (if applicable), on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 (Experience).

Proposals that demonstrate strong historical subcontracting to small businesses and/or the various socioeconomic categories (SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and/or SDVOSB) above the project subcontracting goals may be rated higher.

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information may be rated lower.

FACTOR 4: SAFETY

Submit Exhibit “E” (Safety Data Sheet) under Tab “4.” Individual blocks on this form may be expanded.

For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each entity that is part of the partnership or joint venture. Offeror shall clearly indicate which partner will be in charge of the overall Safety program. EMR, DART and TRC rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years (2017, 2018, and 2019), submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). The Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. If the Offeror has no EMR or insurance company-provided equivalent, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

Provide an explanation for the following circumstances:

- If the Offeror has an EMR above 1.0

Explanations shall include the following:

- A detailed description of the incident(s) which caused the high rate(s)

- Specific corrective actions taken

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case

(TRC) Rate:

For the three (3) previous complete calendar years (2017, 2018, and 2019), submit your OSHA DART and TRC rates, as defined by the U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

If an Offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART or TRC rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

Provide an explanation for the following circumstances:

- If the Offeror has a DART rate 3.0 and above

- If the Offeror has a TRC rate 4.5 and above

Explanations shall include the following:

- A detailed description of the incident(s) which caused the high rate(s)

- Specific corrective actions taken

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety performance record. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety will include, but are not limited to: OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS) database, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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.

Offeror’s EMRs will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk EMR Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than 1.0 to 1.1

Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less than 2.5 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 6.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

Offerors with consistently low and/or very low EMR, DART and/or TRC rates may be rated higher.

Offerors with high and/or extremely high EMR, DART and/or TRC rates for multiple years may be rated lower.

Offerors that do not provide a detailed description of the incident(s) that caused any high/extremely high EMR, DART or TRC rates and/or that do not explain the specific corrective actions taken may be rated lower.

PHASE TWO Basis of Evaluation/Submission Requirements/Criteria Description

FACTOR 5: TECHNICAL SOLUTION – Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

Submit the Technical Solution narrative and drawings under Tab “5.”

Provide a narrative, not to exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages), describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Address the following items in the narrative:

- Description of the Basis of Design and how it meets or exceeds the project/criteria and the requirements of the RFP. The Basis of Design shall include the following as a minimum:

Site layout including a description of the building siting and user access.

Functionality of building spaces/features, circulation, and adjacencies.

Provide conceptual design drawings, not to exceed three (3) single-sided 11”x17” sheets for evaluation of the following:

- Conceptual site plan.

- Conceptual floor plan.

- Elevation plan for the primary entrance side of the facility.

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

FACTOR 6: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to Small Business (SB) concerns, including Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 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.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall use Exhibit “F” (Small Business Participation Plan) to submit (under Tab “6”) the following requested information for evaluation of this factor:

To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify all planned subcontractors by name that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB). Identify the type of product/service to be subcontracted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) to each subcontractor.

To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the Offeror’s total proposed 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). All Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate (22% of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved. Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) consistent with efficient contract performance.

If the Offeror does not intend to subcontract, the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

Note: Large business Offerors selected for award shall be required to submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan incorporating the proposed subcontract values and small business concerns that are specifically identified in the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall also include small business subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum small business subcontracting targets stated in the table below. If the Offeror fails to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan, the Offeror will be ineligible for award.

Minimum Small Business Subcontracting Targets

Percentage of Total Subcontracting Value

Small Business (SB): 68% HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone SB): 10% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 15% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 18% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): 6% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 6%

This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan to determine that the Offeror has identified and demonstrated a commitment to use small business concerns in each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract.

Proposals that fail to identify and commit to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan to determine that the Offeror has demonstrated the maximum practicable participation of small businesses by meeting or exceeding the solicitation’s minimum total small business participation rate (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors). The minimum total small business participation rate for this acquisition is 22% of the total contract value.

Large business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting to other small businesses.

Proposals that fail to demonstrate a total small business participation rate of at least 22% may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

FACTOR 7: PRICE – Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

The Offeror (see definition) shall complete and submit (in a sealed envelope) the following in the order shown below under Tab “7” 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.

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.

A price that is found to be unreasonably high in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award.

Any inconsistency whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an apparently unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price reasonableness rests solely with the Offeror.

EXHIBITS FOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED AS SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS

ON THE BETA.SAM.GOV WEBSITE AT https://beta.sam.gov/ UNDER CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES.

(End of Summary of Changes)