Amendment_2_N62473-19-R-2604.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

N62473-19-R-2604:

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section M, Factor 2 – Experience (a): From: At least tw o (2) relevant construction projects shall have a construction cost of $500,000 or more. To: At least tw o (2) relevant construction projects shall have a construction cost of $250,000 or more.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Mar-2019

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 N6247319R2604

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Mar-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Mar-2019

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACTS CORE

CODE: FOCAS

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:

N6247319R2604

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

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

Factor 1 – Ability to Manage Multiple Simultaneous Projects Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

Factor 5 – Price - Based on Attachment J-B-01 ELIN Schedule

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:

Factor 1 (Ability to Manage Multiple Simultaneous Projects) will be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable for Factor 1, they will not be eligible for award. Factors 2 through 4 and price will be considered. The technical factors (2 and 4) are of equal importance to each other, respectively, 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, or low, 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. 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.

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

EXPERIENCE: Pertains to work performed by an Offeror and Offeror's Team, 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, ALTERATION PROJECT TYPES: Refers to projects where the work modifies existing facilities.

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

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 and address 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 and address 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.

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-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.

SELF-PERFORM: Refers to performing relevant, major construction trade work in-house without subcontractors.

This does not include project administration or management functions (such as quality control or safety program) and miscellaneous work (such as housekeeping or cleanup). Relevant and major construction 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.)

FACTOR 1: ABILITY TO MANAGE MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS PROJECTS

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The current composition and proposed staffing of the firm to manage multiple simultaneous projects will be evaluated in this factor.

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

(1) Using Exhibit “A” (Current Composition and Proposed Staffing), provide a narrative describing the current Offeror composition and the proposed staffing if awarded the single contract. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). On a separate sheet, include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

(2) In addition to the narrative, and if applicable, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or approved mentor-protégé agreement (MPA).

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s current composition and proposed staffing will be used as a means to evaluate the Offeror’s likely ability to manage multiple simultaneous projects. 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.”

Construction Experience:

Submit a maximum of five (5) 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 UNDER NORTH

AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE (237310 HIGHWAY,

STREET, AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION) (https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html) within the construction cost range of $2,000 to $1,000,000.

In addition, the Offeror shall meet the following minimum requirements:

At least two (2) relevant construction projects shall have a construction cost of $250,000 or more. This refers to the total contract cost if the work was performed by the Offeror as prime contractor, and the subcontract cost if the work was performed by the Offeror as a subcontractor.

At least one project demonstrating self-performed construction experience (see definition of self-perform).

Using Exhibit B, it is the Offeror's responsibility to properly describe how its previous experience fits within NAICS Code 237310.

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 “B”) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. 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).

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 each Joint Venture members. 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 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 submit a project completed under the name of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s Team’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 projects

(5) for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience will not be considered.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing construction trade work on two (2) or more relevant construction projects may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self-performance (see definition).

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 shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact Billie Crockett at email address billie.crockett@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 award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

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 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), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

FACTOR 4: SAFETY

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

For a partnership or joint venture, EMR, DART, and TRC rates are required for each entity that is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR) – Submit data for three previous calendar years (2016, 2017, 2018). This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the Offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends shall be addressed as part of the element.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates – Submit data for three previous calendar years (2016, 2017, 2018). If an

Offeror cannot submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data negatively shall be addressed as part of this element.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety –The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work. Included in that narrative, the Offeror shall describe (i) the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors; (ii) any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels; and (iii) the methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. Item (iii) shall include a description of the Offeror’s “Good Catch” Program. A “Good Catch” Program is defined as a program that recognizes and rewards employees for reporting unsafe and/or unhealthful situations and acts to create a climate of trust and safety. The program should also have procedures in place to address deficiencies and unsafe situations immediately and to document those actions accordingly. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one-double sided page or two single-sided pages.

Note: For a partnership or joint venture, the submittal requirements above are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR, DART and TRC rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: (Include in RFP)

The safety factor evaluation will collectively consider the following three submittal requirements:

EMR – The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

OSHA DART and TRC rates – The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

Technical Approach to Safety – The Government will evaluate the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project as well as the degree to which the Offeror’s safety management system will ensure safety compliance of self-performed and subcontracted work, including innovative methods to monitor safe work practices. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps including its “Good Catch” Program.

Lower EMR, DART, and TRC rates may be given more weight.

While the Government may elect to use other sources of information in evaluating safety to include, but not limited to OSHA, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other related databases, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror.

FACTOR 5: PRICE – Based on Attachment J-B-01 ELIN Schedule

The Offeror (see definition) shall complete and submit (in a sealed envelope) the following in the order shown below under Tab “5” of the original proposal only.

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

- Completed Attachment J-B-01 ELIN Schedule

- Bid Bond for contract minimum guarantee of $5,000

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 offeror’s completed Attachment J-B-01 ELIN Schedule 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)