FINAL_ISWM_combined_synopsis_-_amend_02.pdf

Combined synopsis/solicitation issue date: October 10, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019) (changes identified in red)

Subject: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N62473-19-R-4412, INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

FOR NAVY AND MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS IN THE SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN

AREA, CALIFORNIA

(1) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in

Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

Also, this acquisition is being procured in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15.

(2) Solicitation No. N62473-19-R-4412. This solicitation is issued as a Request for Proposals (RFP).

(3) The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal

Acquisition Circular FAC 2019-06 Item I Effective 10 September 2019 (updated with Class Deviation: 2019- O0009). In addition, this solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement Current to DPN 20190913 (Effective 13 Sep 2019) Edition.

See the following website for details: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

(4) This is an unrestricted acquisition in accordance with FAR Subpart 6.1 Full and Open Competition. NAICS code is 562111 – Solid Waste Collection and the small business size standard is $41.5M.

(5) The following are the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and options are applicable to this acquisition:

CLIN 0001: Base Period Recurring Work CLIN 0002: Base Period Non-Recurring Work CLIN 0003: Option Period One Recurring Work CLIN 0004: Option Period One Non-Recurring Work CLIN 0005: Option Period Two Recurring Work CLIN 0006: Option Period Two Non-Recurring Work CLIN 0007: Option Period Three Recurring Work CLIN 0008: Option Period Three Non-Recurring Work CLIN 0009: Option Period Four Recurring Work CLIN 0010: Option Period Four Non-Recurring Work

(6) The outcome to be achieved is to obtain Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) services for Navy and

Marine Corps installations in the San Diego Metropolitan, California (CA). The San Diego metropolitan area is inclusive of Naval Base San Diego, Naval Base Point Loma, and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and their outlying support areas (see solicitation package for details). ISWM services will also be provided for three (3) outlying Naval Training Installations in the San Diego County, CA area.

The areas include the U.S. Navy Remote Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training center in Warner Springs, CA, the Mountain Warfare Training Camp Michael Monsoor in Campo, CA, and Camp Morena, operated by Naval Base Coronado, CA. The proposed contract will provide labor, supervision, http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ management, equipment, and materials (except those specified as government-furnished), to perform the following technical annex:

Annex 1503030 – ISWM

The outcome for this procurement is consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 37.101) definition of service contracts. The Product Service Code for this procurement is S205 – Housekeeping (Trash/Garbage Collection).

In addition, the proposed business arrangement for this acquisition is a single award Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with recurring and non-recurring services. Option periods will be utilized to ensure satisfactory contractor performance and validation of government requirements for continuous services. All recurring services will be FFP and funded prior to the execution of the base period and option periods.

The non-recurring work portion of the requirement will be FFP and funded on an as-needed basis during the base and option periods and may be purchased via Government Credit Card (via DoD FedMall) or funded by a task order or task order modification. Actual funding will be obtained prior to ordering non-recurring work.

(7) Date(s) and place(s) of delivery and acceptance:

Date(s) for delivery and acceptance:

CLIN 0001: January 1, 2020 –December 31, 2020 (12 months) CLIN 0002: January 1, 2020 –December 31, 2020 (12 months) CLIN 0003: January 1, 2021 –December 31, 2021 (12 months) CLIN 0004: January 1, 2021 –December 31, 2021 (12 months) CLIN 0005: January 1, 2022 –December 31, 2022 (12 months) CLIN 0006: January 1, 2022 –December 31, 2022 (12 months) CLIN 0007: January 1, 2023 –December 31, 2023 (12 months) CLIN 0008: January 1, 2023 –December 31, 2023 (12 months) CLIN 0009: January 1, 2024 –December 31, 2024 (12 months) CLIN 0010: January 1, 2024 –December 31, 2024 (12 months)

Place(s) for delivery and acceptance:

Naval Base San Diego (NBSD), Naval Base Point Loma (NBPL), and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and their outlying support areas (see solicitation package for details). Place(s) for delivery and acceptance will also include three (3) outlying Naval Training Installations in the San Diego County, CA area.

The areas include the U.S. Navy Remote Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training center in Warner Springs, CA, the Mountain Warfare Training Camp Michael Monsoor in Campo, CA, and Camp Morena.

(8) FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Deviation 2018-O0018) applies to this acquisition and any applicable addenda to this provision.

(9) FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items is applicable to this acquisition and the evaluation criteria is included in paragraph (a) of this provision. The LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. See FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items for further details.

(10) Offerors shall include a completed copy of the provision at 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and

Certifications -- Commercial Items, with its offer.

(11) FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items is applicable to this acquisition and any applicable addenda to this clause.

(12) FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders --

Commercial Items applies to this acquisition and the additional FAR clauses cited in the clause are applicable to this acquisition.

(13) The anticipated award date is December 2, 2019 with a start date of January 1, 2020. The offeror agrees to hold its offer firm until December 31, 2019.

(14) Defense Priorities and Allocations System: Not applicable.

(15) Proposal due date and delivery location:

Proposals are due by Wednesday, November 13, 2019 by 2:00 PM, (Pacific Time). Deliver proposals to 1220 Pacific Highway, Building 128, Mail Room, Attn: Terry A. Hardin, Code ACQ2.TH, San Diego, CA 92132-5190.

Pre-proposal conference:

The pre-proposal conference will be held on Thursday, October 17, 2019. The pre-proposal conference will be at the Naval Base Point Loma (Taylor Street Complex), 4635 Pacific Highway, Bldg 2, San Diego, California, at 10:00 AM (Pacific Time). Those wishing to attend the pre-proposal conference must register via e-mail at terry.a.hardin@navy.mil by 12:00 P.M. (Pacific Time), on October 16, 2019.

(16) Inquiries regarding the RFP can be submitted electronically using the Request for Proposal Information (RFI) form provided as Attachment I of this solicitation. The Point of Contact (POC) for inquiries is Terry A.

Hardin at (619) 532-1995, or email terry.a.hardin@navy.mil. RFI’s are due no later than 2:00 P.M. (Pacific Time) on Friday, November 1, 2019. The Government cannot guarantee a response to inquiries received less than 10-calendar days before the proposal due date.

(17) Attachments:

Technical Annexes:

Annex 0100000 – C General Information (Revised) Annex 0200000 – C Management and Administration (Revised) Annex 0200000 – F Management and Administration Annex 0200000 – J Management and Administration Annex 1503030 – C ISWM (Revised) Annex 1503030 – F ISWM (Revised) Annex 1503030 – J ISWM

Wage Determination:

J-0200000-02 – SCA Wage Determination

Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) and Inventory Schedules (both attachments in one spreadsheet):

J-0200000-09 – ISWM ELINs (Revised) J-1503030-02 – ISWM Inventory (Revised)

Maps:

NBSD Installation Map MCAS Miramar General Development Map – Mainside MCAS Miramar / East Miramar General Development Map Marine Corps Recruit Depot Map Naval Medical Center San Diego Map mailto:terry.a.hardin@navy.mil

Base Map for Naval Base Point Loma (Added) Michael Monsoor 1 Map (Added) Michael Monsoor 2 Map (Added) Michael Monsoor 3 Map (Added) Michael Monsoor Area Map (Added) Sere Camp Map (Added)

Exhibits:

Experience of Firm Project Data Sheet (Exhibit A) Management Approach Data Sheet (Exhibit B) Safety Data Sheet (Exhibit C) Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit D) Financial Questionnaire (Exhibit E) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Exhibit F)

Other:

Attachment I – Request for Information Form

(18) Proposal submission:

Submit Original and 4 copies of your proposal plus an electronic version of the proposal on a CD-ROM. For the CD-ROM, Offerors shall include Microsoft Word 2007 or later version or Adobe Acrobat 5.0 or later version of the technical portion of the proposal. Offerors may submit a Word and PDF version of the technical proposal. For the pricing portion of the proposal, all formulas must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2007 or later. Leave all excel formulas open in the spreadsheet. In addition, Offerors shall round all proposal figures in the ELIN schedule to two decimal places.

The following provisions and clauses (incorporated by reference) are required to be completed by the prospective offerors and must be submitted with the offer:

52.209-7 – Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (Oct 2018) 52.209-11 – Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law (Feb 2016) 52.209-12 – Certification Regarding Tax Matters (Feb 2016) 52.212-3 – Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items (Oct 2018) – Alternate I (Oct 2014) 52.225-25 -- Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Engaging in Certain Activities or Transactions Relating to Iran—Representation and Certifications (Aug 2018)

General Clauses and Provisions:

52.203-3 – Gratuities (Apr 1984) 52.203-13 – Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Oct 2015) 52.204-7 – System for Award Management (Oct 2018) 52.204-9 – Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel (Jan 2011) 52.204-13 – System for Award Management Maintenance (Oct 2018) 52.204-16 – Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (Jul 2016) 52.204-18 – Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (Jul 2016) 52.204-21 – Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (Jun 2016) 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items. (DEVIATION 2018-O0018) 52.212-4 – Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items (Oct 2018) 52.217-5 – Evaluation of Options (Jul 1990) 52.232-18 – Availability of Funds (Apr 1984) 52.232-33 – Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-- System for Award Management (Oct 2018) 52.232-36 – Payment by Third Party (May 2014) 52.232-39 – Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (Jun 2013) 52.232-40 – Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Dec 2013) 252.201-7000 – Contracting Officer's Representative (Dec 1991) 252.203-7000 – Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (Sep 2011)

252.203-7002 – Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (Sep 2013) 252.203-7003 – Agency Office of the Inspector General (Aug 2019) 252.203-7005 – Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (Nov 2011) 252.204-7004 – Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors (Feb 2019) 252.204-7006 – Billing Instructions (Oct 2005) 252.204-7008 – Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls (Oct 2016) 252.204-7009 – Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information (Oct 2016) 252.204-7012 – Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (Oct 2016) 252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support (May 2016) 252.205-7000 – Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders (Dec 1991) 252.215-7008 – Only One Offer (Jul 2019) 252.215-7010 – Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Jul 2019) 252.216-7006 – Ordering (Sep 2019) 252.219-7003 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) (May 2019) 252.226-7001 – Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns (Apr 2019) 252.232-7003 – Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports (Dec 2018) 252.232-7006 – Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions (Dec 2018) **Completed after award** 252.232-7010 – Levies on Contract Payments (Dec 2006) 252.232-7011 – Payments in Support of Emergencies and Contingency Operations (May 2013) 252.243-7001 – Pricing of Contract Modifications (Dec 1991) 252.243-7002 – Request for Equitable Adjustment (Dec 2012) 252.244-7000 – Subcontracts for Commercial Items (Jun 2013)

FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

3. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. In order to promote efficient competition, 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 lowest priced proposal 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 the lowest priced proposal is technically acceptable, and if the price is determined to be reasonable in the price evaluation, the Government will make an award to that offeror with the lowest price. If the lowest priced proposal is not technically acceptable, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until one

(1) has 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.

4. 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. Non-cost/price proposals shall be provided to the evaluators without any identification of prices or any rank order of prices. 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. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any offerors whose proposals are deficient, or omitted any submittal requirements, from the competitive range without corrections through discussions.

5. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award.

An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per Naval Facilities Acquisition Supplement (NFAS) 15.304(d), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The safety evaluation has three elements: Experience Modification Rate (EMR); Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Job Restriction, or Transfer (DART); and Technical Approach to Safety.

3. The safety elements should be collectively considered and then assigned an overall adjectival rating for the safety factor. The board will need to make a qualitative determination of the rating for safety taking into account the risk ratings for EMR, DART and the subjective evaluation of the narrative.

4. The board will not average the rating from the three (3) previous complete calendar years for the EMR and DART and should consider data trends.

C. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

Each offeror’s technical factors and past performance will be evaluated separately. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation of the technical factors, and past performance, an overall non-price factors rating of Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) will be assigned to each offeror’s non-price factors proposal.

1. The following adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign a rating to each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factor ratings. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The weaknesses and/or deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each non-price evaluation factor which influenced the assigned adjectival rating shall be identified.

Definitions Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past Performance shall be evaluated when using the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b). Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in the following table:

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable (U) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(a) Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation.

(1) The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is relevant is unique to each LPTA source selection. A relevant project is further defined as a project that is similar in size, scope, and complexity to ISWM services requested under this solicitation.

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

(b) SSEB members will review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Factor 2 – Management Approach

Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

The distinction between experience and past performance is 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.

The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. In order to promote efficient competition, 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 lowest priced proposal 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 the lowest priced proposal is technically acceptable, and if the price is determined to be reasonable in the price evaluation, the Government will make an award to that offeror with the lowest price. If the lowest priced proposal is not technically acceptable, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated in the order of lowest price to highest price until one (1) has 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.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall complete and submit the following:

Price proposal shall be submitted in separate binders from the Technical Proposal, and clearly marked “Volume 1 – Price Proposal.” Include a separate tab for each item shown below (TAB’s #1 through #7):

TAB #1: Cover Letter: Include the following also on the cover letter:

• Solicitation Number N62473-19-R-4412.

• Name, address, telephone, and email address of the offeror.

• Point(s) of contact with title, telephone, fax, email address of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

• Total price per Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) (CLINs 0001 through 0010) and the total proposed price of all CLINs combined. The figures on the cover letter shall match the figures identified in TAB #2.

• An alternate point of contact (POC) with whom the Government can correspond regarding the solicitation.

• The cover letter signed by an authorized representative.

• The Offeror shall acknowledge in their cover letter there are no technical assumptions and/or qualifiers/conditions in the proposal. See below for details:

TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS:

Any technical assumptions made by the offeror in its proposal will not be binding on the Government. The offeror will not be entitled to any equitable adjustments based on assumptions made by the offeror in its proposal.

QUALIFIERS/CONDITIONS:

Any qualifiers / conditions made by the offeror in its proposal will not be binding on the Government. The offeror will not be entitled to any equitable adjustments based on qualifiers / conditions made by the offeror in its proposal.

Note: An Offeror who includes any technical assumptions and/or qualifiers / conditions in their proposal maybe ineligible for award.

TAB #2: Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) Pricing: Complete a paper copy of Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) pricing, and an electronic version on a CD-ROM using Excel worksheets posted online at http://www.fbo.gov. Electronic version must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010. Leave all excel formulas in the spreadsheet. In addition, Offerors shall round all proposal figures in the ELIN schedule to two (2) decimal places.

TAB #3: Completed Exhibit E, “Financial Questionnaire” from banking institution.

TAB #4: If Offeror is proposing as a joint venture and/or mentor-protégé, Offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement and, if the joint venture is with a mentor-protégé, a copy of the relevant mentor-protégé agreement approved by the Small Business Administration.

TAB #5: Copy of the Online Representations and Certifications from the System for Award Management, at the following website: www.sam.gov, including all completed applicable sections of the FAR Clause 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (Mar 2015).

TAB #6: Complete Exhibit “F”, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. NAVFAC's command-wide small business subcontracting targets are shown below. These may be higher or lower than percentages that would represent realistic, challenging small business subcontracting goals for this acquisition. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall establish small business subcontracting plan goals and shall document in their subcontracting plans the basis for all proposed goals. Plans shall be submitted with initial offers.

Program Subcontracting Goal

SB 65%

SDB 17.4%

HUBZone 9.5%

WOSB 33%

SDVOSB 5.5%

Note: Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone), Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB).

The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated prior to award. Failure to submit and negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. See FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Aug 2018) Alternate II (Nov 2016) for details. FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II is referenced in FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items (Aug 2018).

TAB #7: Copy of the VETS-4212 annual report. Legislatively mandated under 38 U.S. Code, Section 4212, codified at 41 CFR Section 61-300, respectively, contractors and subcontractors who enter into, or modify a contract or subcontract with the Federal Government, and whose contract meets the criteria set forth in the above legislation/regulations, are required to report annually on their affirmative action efforts in employing veterans. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) has a legislative requirement to collect, and make available to OFCCP, reported data contained on the VETS-4212 report for compliance enforcement.

http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm.

Federal Contractor Reporting – VET 4212 http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm

In accordance with FAR 22.13, any contractor or subcontractor with a contract or subcontract with the Federal Government of $150,000 or more that was entered into on or after October 1, 2015 (or $100,000 or more that was entered prior to October 1, 2015) must take affirmative action to hire and promote qualified covered veterans which includes, special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam-era, recently separated veterans, and any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized.

If subject to the reporting requirements, companies must file an annual VETS-4212 Report, which shows the number of covered veterans in their workforce and number of new hires, including covered veterans hired during the reporting period. Instructions, information, and follow-up assistance is provided at VETS-4212 Internet site at http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm or employers may contact the VETS-4212 customer support at (866) 237-0275 or e-mail at VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov.

VETS-4212 Reports must be filed between August 1 and September 30 of each year following a calendar year in which a contractor or subcontractor held a covered contract or subcontract.

Upon the successful submission of a VETS-4212 report, federal contractors will receive an email confirmation of receipt notification for their records. Offerors shall include a copy of their confirmation notification email in their proposal as verification of submission for the current reporting period. DO NOT SUBMIT A COPY OF THE REPORT ITSELF. If this requirement is not applicable to your firm, provide a statement that your firm does not have any contracts subject to this requirement.

A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor that has not submitted a required annual form VETS-

4212, Federal Contractor Veterans’ Employment Report (VETS-4212 Report) if subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212(d) for that fiscal year.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

A price that is found to be unreasonably high in relation to the proposed work may result in the overall proposal being considered unacceptable. The burden of proof of price reasonableness rests solely with the offeror.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

(1) Factor 1 Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide the following for evaluation under Tab #1 of the Technical Proposal Volume 2 on Exhibit “A” for each project. The attached Offeror Recent, Relevant Experience of Firm Project Data Sheets, Exhibit A, is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. The Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form.

Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total page limit for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages that are 8 ½ x 11 in size.

NOTE: Projects submitted under Factor 1 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm must be the same projects submitted for Factor 4 - Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects.

http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm mailto:VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov

(1) Submit a minimum of two (2) projects and a maximum of four (4) projects, performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor that best describes your experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicited contract.

(2) Project experience is defined as a project performed under a single contract or task order. For multiple award contracts and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offeror shall submit the work performed under a task order project.

(3) For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as follows:

(i) A government or commercial contract/project or task order that was at least 51% self-performed (defined by the dollar value) by the Offeror as the prime contractor; “Self-performed” is defined as the Offeror who performs relevant work that is the same or similar in size, scope and complexity of the work requirements in the solicitation, by in-house workforce and not by subcontractor(s). This does not include administrative or management functions.;

(ii) At least 50% complete in terms of amount paid for contract performance;

(iii) Was awarded within the last five (5) years prior to the solicitation issuance date;

and

(iv) A total annual award value of $1.1 Million or more upon contract award date for services similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes: 1503030 – ISWM.

(4) The Government will not consider any project submitted for experience that was performed by a firm other than the Offeror, except that:

(a) If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have shared experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV member. Offerors are still limited to a total of four (4) projects;

(b) The Government will consider otherwise relevant projects that were performed by the Offeror’s proposed key personnel; however, experience of proposed subcontractor employees, key or otherwise, will not be considered; and,

(c) The Government will consider otherwise relevant projects performed by parent or subsidiary companies, predecessor companies, or satellite offices (i.e. any office(s) of the Offeror other than the one submitting the current proposal) of the Offeror, provided the Offeror’s proposal clearly explains how the offered experience will be effectively utilized in the performance of the solicited contract. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, if it is unclear how experience gained under a particular project will be utilized in or benefit the performance of the proposed contract, that project experience may not be considered in the evaluation. The Government will not consider the experience of proposed subcontractors.

(5) Exhibit A, Offeror Recent, Relevant Experience of Firm Project Data Sheets submitted that exceed the maximum, three single-sided page limit will be removed prior to evaluation. Project Data Sheets submitted that exceed the maximum four (4) projects allowed for consideation will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for entire multiple award contracts and/or Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts as a whole will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for projects that are not at least 50% complete within five (5) years prior to the RFP issue date will be removed prior to evaluation. Exhibit A, Project Data Sheets submitted for evaluation that are not for services similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes in paragraph three (3) above will be removed prior to evaluation.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant 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 ability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The offer may be rated “Acceptable” for this factor if the offeror submits a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of four (4) relevant projects that all comply with the following:

1. Are at least 51% self-performed (defined by the dollar value) by the Offeror as the prime contractor;

2. Are at least 50% complete in terms of amount paid for contract performance;

3. Were awarded within the last five (5) years prior to the solicitation issuance date; and

4. Have a total annual award value of $1.1 Million or more upon contract award date for services similar to the services described in the solicitation technical annexes: 1503030 – ISWM.

(2) Factor 2, Management Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit Exhibit B under Tab #2 of the Technical Proposal Volume 2. Exhibit B is MANDATORY. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, the total page limit shall not exceed eight (8) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages using between a 10 to 12-point Times New Roman font. The offeror shall submit the information described below of the proposed approach to meeting the requirement of this solicitation.

1. Workload Management Plan: Provide a proposed plan that is detailed, specific, and demonstrates how the offeror has the necessary capability to successfully manage refuse and recycling collection and disposal services and surges in workload at multiple locations identified in this solicitation.

2. Subcontractor Management Plan: Provide a detailed and structured plan with methods for monitoring and controlling subcontractors and methods that will be implemented to correct poor performing subcontractors. The offeror shall address how it will ensure that high quality services are provided that meet or exceed contract requirements.

3. Quality Control Management Plan: The offeror shall provide a detailed and structured plan for addressing customer complaints and marginal or unsatisfactory performance.

The offeror shall address quality control methods that will be implemented to ensure performance meets or exceeds contract requirements.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate to the Government that the offeror has a plan and the ability to carry out that plan to manage and control the execution of work as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Failure to provide any of the elements described within the Management Approach may result in a proposal rated “Unacceptable”.

The offeror may be rated “Acceptable” if the offeror complies with all of the following:

1) The offeror has established capabilities and intent to successfully manage refuse and recycling collection and disposal services and surges in workload at multiple locations identified in this solicitation.

2) The offeror has established methods for monitoring and controlling subcontractors and methods that will be implemented to correct poor-performing subcontractors.

3) The offeror has a plan for addressing customer complaints and marginal or unsatisfactory performance. The offeror has addressed quality control methods that will be implemented to ensure performance meets or exceeds contract requirements.

(3) Factor 3, Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit Exhibit C (Safety Data Sheet/Safety

Narrative) under Tab #3. The offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or JV; the following submittal requirements are required for each Contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one (1) safety narrative is required. EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.) Exhibit C is MANDATORY and shall be used to submit safety information. The safety narrative total page limit shall not exceed four (4) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages using between a 10 to 12-point Times New Roman font.

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): include three (3) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (2016, 2017 and 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 factor submission.

(2) OSHA DART Rate: Submit three (3) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (2016, 2017, and 2018). If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA and DART rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA and DART rate data negatively shall be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: 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. 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 subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the offeror will describe their 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. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages.

Note: For a partnership or joint venture, the submittal requirements (above) are required for each offeror who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one (1) technical approach for safety narrative is required.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

• Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

• Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

• Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three (3) previous complete calendar years (2016, 2017 and 2018) the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends shall be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board 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.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rates: For the three (3) previous complete calendar years (2016, 2017, and 2018), the offeror will submit their OSHA DART, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART rate data and negative trends shall be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART rate 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.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages. The board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

(4) Other sources of information available to the Government: other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), CPARS and other related databases.

(4) Factor 4, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information for evaluation under Tab #4 of the technical proposal Volume 2.

NOTE: Projects submitted for Factor 4 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects must be the same projects submitted under Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm.

IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE

SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT

SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. 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 (Exhibit D), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Terry A. Hardin, via email at terry.a.hardin@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating relevant past performance. 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 team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) 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.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Recent, Relevant Experience of Firm. 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.

While the Government may elect to consider data…