Amendment_0001.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

AM0001 20 Jul 2018

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

NAVFAC Hawaii Construction Acquisition Division (OPHA2) 400 Marshall Road See Item 6 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3139

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

N62478-17-R-4032

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

5 Jul 2018

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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 Offers [ ] is extended, [ X ] is not extended.

Offers 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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) NA

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

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

(x) 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: FAR CLAUSE 52.243-4, CHANGES

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.)

N62478-17-R-4032, DESIGN-BUILD/DESIGN-BID-BUILD MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT (DB/DBB MACC), VARIOUS LOCATIONS, STATE OF HAWAII

(See page 2 )

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AM0001

SF30, BLOCK 14 CONTINUED

1. Attached hereto are new and revised pages to the solicitation. Revised pages replace like numbered pages. The revision mark “AMENDMENT 0001” is shown on each new and revised page.

a. REVISED SECTIONS/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/PAGES/PARAGRAPHS. The following are revised items to the solicitation.

Document 00110 Evaluation Factors for Award

b. NEW SECTIONS/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/PAGES/PARAGRAPHS

Document 00900 Appendix A Responses to Questions Submitted by Planholders

2. The date for receipt of proposals is August 6, 2018, 2:00 P.M., HST.

Document 00110

Amendment 0001

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 CONTRACT SCOPE

1.2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

1.3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.5 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

ATTACHMENTS

(A) – CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

(B) – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(C) – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING RECORD

(D) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND COMMITMENT STRATEGY

EVALUATION FACTORS

PART I – GENERAL

1.1 CONTRACT SCOPE

The work includes, but is not limited to labor, supervision, tools, materials and equipment necessary to perform new construction, repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure based on design-build or design-bid-build (Full Plans and Specifications) for infrastructure within the State of Hawaii. Infrastructure is defined as: 1) residential building construction; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, airfields and roadways; 5) dredging and waterfront work on piers, wharves, caissons, and dry docks; or 6) magazines and petroleum, oil and lubricant (POL). The areas of consideration will include, but not be limited to, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and miscellaneous Federal and other facilities. Task orders will be issued for the work that may require design and construction services. In support of the design-build work, the Contractor shall employ the services of an architect/engineering professional experienced in the coordination of multi-disciplined architectural/engineering design efforts in all aspects of general building and new and renovation projects.

1.2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

This acquisition is being advertised on an unrestricted basis and is a source selection procurement requiring non-cost/price, past performance and price proposals. This procurement consists of one (1) solicitation with the intent to award multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) IDIQ contracts.

1.3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

The total maximum dollar value of this acquisition is $990,000,000 for all contracts over the life of the contracts or 60 months, whichever occurs first. The minimum guarantee for the base period only will be $25,000. The minimum guarantee may be met by the issuance of a task order during the base period or option period(s). The task order minimum and maximum will be stated as $15,000,000 to $200,000,000, respectively.

1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

a. This is a two-phase procurement. In Phase 1 of the two-phase selection procedure, the Offerors will submit and the Government will evaluate Factors 1 through 4 (see paragraph 2.2).

The Government will then short list a maximum of eight (8) of the most highly rated Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the design-build/design-bid-build Multiple Award Construction Contracts in Phase 2. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, they will not be considered for Phase 2.

b. In Phase 2 of the two-phase selection procedure, the short-listed offerors will submit Factor 5, 6, 7, and price (see paragraph 2.2). In making the best value award decision after Phase 2, the Government will consider the evaluated ratings for Factors 2 through 7 and price.

c. The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and award multiple contracts without conducting discussions; therefore, your initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer. However, the Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of the proposals, or may conduct discussions if it is deemed necessary to obtain the best value for the Government.

d. If discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors within the competitive range. The Government 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, considering price and technical merit.

e. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Significant weaknesses or multiple weaknesses may impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. Any proposal with a rating that is less than Acceptable for a factor will require correction before being considered for award of a contract.

f. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts.

g. 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.

1.5 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of the contracts. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, designers, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

PART II – EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

The Government intends to award multiple IDIQ type contracts to those responsible Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering non-cost/price factors, past performance and price. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that technical factors are equal to each other and when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance). The combined non-cost/price factors are approximately equal to price. The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/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-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors.

Business judgments and tradeoffs may be used to determine the proposals offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision. The Government also reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if only one (1) proposal is determined to represent the most advantageous proposal.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors:

Phase 1:

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

Phase 2:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy Design Reduction Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization

Price (for the seed project which may or may not be awarded.) Project Title: To be identified in Phase 2.

Price proposal will consist of lump sum pricing for the seed project. The total price proposed will be evaluated to ensure fair and reasonable pricing.

a. NON-COST/PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6).

The narrative shall also 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) The technical approach narrative shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) and limited to one

(1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #3 below is not included in this page limitation.

(3) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of their applicable joint venture (JV) 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., JV member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Factor 2 – Experience:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects in which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Out of the maximum of five (5) construction projects, at least two (2) projects shall be new construction and one (1) project shall be repair/alteration or related demolition of existing infrastructure. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Infrastructure is defined as: 1) residential building construction; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; 4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, airfields and roadways; 5) dredging and waterfront work on piers, wharves, caissons, and dry docks; or 6) magazines and POL. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure. The Offeror must have been a Prime Contractor for the projects and each project shall be $15,000,000 or more in dollar value and be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

Magazines, in the context of this RFP, refer to high-explosive magazines used to store mass-detonating explosives, bombs, warheads, missiles, naval mines, demolition charges and other munitions. POL references facilities and infrastructure related but not limited to, the transmission, dispensing, receiving, and storage of marine diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and other fuels. Magazines and POL do not have to be within one project to be considered relevant.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract.

For multiple award and IDIQ 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 & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) 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 for design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not alter the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) with the exception of expanding the individual blocks on this form; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) and shall be Arial 11 font (minimum).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The description shall identify which type of infrastructure each submitted project represents. In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process. The validation or certification documentation will not be included in the page limitation of the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A).

If the Offeror is a JV or a participant of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor- Protégé Program, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé as the prime contractor. If the JV or SBA Mentor-Protégé does not have shared experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV partner or for the Mentor and for the Protégé for which they were prime contractors. At least one (1) project from each JV partner, or at least one (1) project from the Mentor and one (1) project from the Protégé, shall be submitted. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442) for this evaluation factor, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate the extent of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm involvement in the performance of the contract; and shall only be for those projects for which the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies were prime contractors. In demonstrating construction experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the involvement the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. In demonstrating construction experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from subcontractors.

Projects utilizing experience of subcontractors shall only be for those projects for which the subcontractor was the prime contractor. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as design of new and/or repair and alteration of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure is defined as:

(1) residential building construction; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, airfields and roadways; 5) dredging and waterfront work on piers, wharves, caissons, and dry docks; or 6) magazines and POL. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure. A-E design experience is on construction projects valued at $15,000,000 or more. All relevant projects submitted shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the issuance of this RFP.

For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a single task order as a project.

Proposals with more than one designer of record (Lead A-E that coordinates, facilitates and stamps the overall project) will not be considered.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) 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 for design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not alter the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) with the exception of expanding the individual blocks on this form; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) and shall be Arial 11 font (minimum).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The description shall identify which type of infrastructure each submitted project represents. In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through USGBC or the equivalent organization or process. The validation or certification documentation will not be included in the page limitation of the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A).

Also, the description should address features detailing how the work was completed in accordance with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”

If the Lead Designer (DOR) is a JV or a participant of Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor-Protégé Program, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé as the DOR. If the JV or SBA Mentor-Protégé does not have shared experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV partner or for the Mentor and Protégé as the DOR. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV partners or both Mentor and Protégé may be rated lower. 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, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate the extent of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm involvement in the performance of the contract. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. Projects for which experience of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies are being used to demonstrate experience shall be for projects where affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies were lead designers or DORs. In demonstrating design experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. In demonstrating design experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from design subcontractors. Projects utilizing the experience of design subcontractors shall be for those projects that the design subcontractors were lead designers or DORs. Projects where the design subcontractor was not the designer of record will not be considered. The Offeror must provide a supporting JV agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment that the design subcontractor will have significant involvement in performance of the major or critical aspects of this contract. Offerors proposing multiple design firms should submit relevant project experience for all design firms. Failure to do so may result in a lower rating. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Proposals that do not contain any projects that demonstrate experience for the Offeror or its DOR will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features that have received final certification by the date of issuance of this RFP may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features. Projects that have not received final certification by the date of issuance of this RFP may be considered for experience, but will not be considered to demonstrate experience with sustainability.

Relevant projects that the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé completed together may be considered more favorably than those projects that were completed by only one JV partner, Mentor, or Protégé.

Relevant projects where the Offeror performed major or critical aspects of the project may be considered more favorably than major or critical aspects of the project performed by a subcontractor.

Relevant projects where the Offeror’s DOR performed major or critical aspects of the project may be considered more favorably than major or critical aspects of the project performed by a design subcontractor.

Relevant projects submitted by the Offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more favorably than relevant projects submitted using a subcontractor's experience.

Proposals that contain relevant construction projects that demonstrate at least five (5) types of infrastructure may be considered more favorably than those proposals that do not demonstrate at least five (5) types of infrastructure.

Proposals that contain relevant design projects that demonstrate at least five (5) types of infrastructure may be considered more favorably than those proposals that do not demonstrate at least five (5) types of infrastructure.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS)/CPAR evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If a completed CCASS, ACASS, or CPAR evaluation is not available for a project that was submitted under Factor 2, the Offeror shall submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for that project. Evidence of customer satisfaction shall be from the owner and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration of construction projects or design administration of design projects. For construction contractors, it shall not be from the designer on a design-build project nor shall it be from a prime construction contractor for a subcontractor. For design firms, it shall not be from the construction contractor on a design-build project nor shall it be from prime consultant to a subconsultant or from a subconsultant to a prime consultant. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, previously completed PPQs in full text submitted for other RFPs will be accepted. All PPQs shall be complete, contain client’s signature, and include all information requested in Attachment B, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) located the end of Document 00110. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. 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, Ms. Kris Nakashima, kris.nakashima@navy.mil.

Offerors shall provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors shall also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) and shall not exceed two (2) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or four (4) single-sided 8.5” x 11” 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’s team performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or JV 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 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.

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

(a) Submittal Requirements:

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 and the Offeror’s method for qualifying, evaluating, selecting all tiers of sub-contractors. (For a partnership, joint venture, or mentor protégé, the following submittal requirements are required for each Contractor who is a part of the partnership, joint venture, or mentor protégé; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR, DART, and TRC shall not be submitted for subcontractors). The narrative shall include:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR);

Include three previous calendar years’ (January 2015 through December 2017) worth of data.

This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. If no EMR exists, the Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate for the identical range of dates. If there is no EMR premium or equivalent rate 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. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

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

OSHA DART Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and TRC Rate. Submit three (3) previous calendar years’ (January 2015 through December 2017) worth of OSHA DART and TRC data. If the OSHA DART and TRC rates cannot be submitted, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that portray negative trends for OSHA DART and TRC data shall be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART and lower Total TRC Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety:

Technical Approach for Safety should describe 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. Fully describe the safety management system that will be used to oversee safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work. Also describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe 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. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages, Arial 11 font (minimum).

Note: For a partnership, mentor/protégé or JV, the EMR, OSHA DART, and TRC rates are required for each entity; however, only one safety narrative is required. Safety narratives for a partnership, mentor/protégé or JV may be up to one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages in length, Arial 11 font (minimum).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for its self-performed work and the work of its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the EMR, OSHA DART and TRC Rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower EMR, OSHA DART and TRC rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety management system, safety performance record, and the Offeror’s methodology of qualifying, evaluating, selecting and overseeing its subcontractors. 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), 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.

The Government 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 and the specific management practices that will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support.

Offeror’s EMR 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 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include the following:

- Interior circulation/adjacencies

- Exterior façade describing how the proposed construction integrates with the surrounding area and existing base facilities design or architectural theme.

- Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), emergency vehicle access, and ATFP standoff distances. Also include in the narrative a description of the general concept proposed to meet low impact development (LID).

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or six (6) single-sided pages) 8.5” x 11” pages in length, Arial 11 font (minimum). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings (if included) considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and 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 – Energy Design Reduction

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) Energy Efficiency Narrative:

Offerors shall provide a detailed narrative describing how the proposed solution will meet baseline American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2013. The narrative shall target a design solution that will provide at least a 30% energy reduction below the baseline ASHRAE 90.1, based on life cycle cost effectiveness

(LCCE).

To determine energy consumption levels for both the ASHRAE baseline building and proposed building, use the ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G – Building Performance Rating Method, except replace the formula in G1.2 with the following:

Percentage improvement = 100 × ((Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads) − (Proposed building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)) / (Baseline building consumption − Receptacle and process loads)

Describe any assumptions that were used to obtain the percent energy reduction.

The narrative shall address the following: 1) Mechanical (HVAC); and 2) Electrical Systems (lighting and control systems, including any interior lighting systems).

If an Offeror proposes that a 30% energy reduction below the ASHRAE 90.1 is not LCCE, the Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative describing how the proposed solution will provide the highest percent energy reduction that is lifecycle cost effective.

Note: Building performance rating and percent energy reduction are calculated in terms of energy rather than energy cost.

Do not exceed two (2) double-sided 8.5” x 11”pages (or four (4) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages), Arial 11 font (minimum).

(b) Basis of Government Evaluation:

Energy Efficiency Narrative and Solution: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed energy efficiency narrative and solution.

Narratives that do not address all submittal requirements may be rated lower.

Narrative must provide a sufficient detail of all assumptions made in calculating the life cycle cost effectiveness.

Proposals that demonstrate the highest percent energy reduction that is life cycle cost effective may be rated higher.

Factor 7 – Small Business Utilization

1. Achievements: All offerors shall provide a narrative (limited to two pages) to describe their achievements in supporting the Government’s policy to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business (SB), veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns to participate as subcontractors consistent with efficient contract performance. In support of narrative submissions:

a. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under Factor 1 (Experience) in the format provided in Attachment C, Small Business Subcontracting Record.

b. Offerors representing as other than small businesses shall also provide copies of the most current individual subcontracting reports (ISRs) associated with each project cited under Factor 1 (Experience) if a small business subcontracting plan was required by the contract. If such projects were completed under specific task orders, provide ISRs for the overall contract. For cited projects with state and local government agencies, provide similar subcontracting performance reports if required by the contracts. When not specifically addressed in the ISR or similar report, offerors shall provide explanations for all instances of failures to meet dollar or percentage goals in individual subcontracting plans.

Notes:

The Government reserves the right to consider achievements information on other recent, relevant projects from all available sources.

Offerors utilizing achievements information of team members or key subcontractors shall clearly demonstrate how these companies will have meaningful involvement in the management of the subcontracting program for this acquisition. If not, such achievement information will not be considered under this factor. If the offeror is a new joint venture, partnership or other entity consisting of more than one company, provide achievements information for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program and clearly describe those responsibilities.

Failure to provide ISRs or any other requested information must be fully explained and may negatively impact your evaluation.

2. Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy including all data elements shown in Attachment D, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

a. Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition the extent of work the offeror will self-perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a joint venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member (e.g. small business, woman-owned small business, other than small business).

b. Include supplemental narratives (limited to five pages) to address other elements of the offeror’s strategy such as binding agreements covering post award roles for execution of the contract and specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small businesses opportunities to both participate in this acquisition and build capabilities to support future NAVFAC acquisitions.

c. The anticipated prime and first tier overall small business participation rate for this acquisition (i.e. work to be performed by small businesses as the prime and/or subcontractors) is 20% of the contract value. Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business socioeconomic programs listed in Attachment D consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors shall explain in their participation and commitment strategies how proposed participation rates were established. The small business participation and commitment strategy must be in agreement with any required small business subcontracting plan and will be made a part of the contract upon award.

(c) Basis of Evaluation:

Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. The anticipated benefits of proposed initiatives and tools to enhance small business participation and capabilities will be considered. The Government will assess proposal realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition.

b. PRICE EVALUATION

PRICE PROPOSAL FOR THE SEED PROJECT (which may or may not be awarded) - Project Title: To be identified in Phase 2.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

With regards to price, Offerors shall complete the Proposal Schedule line item for the seed project (which may or may not be awarded).

BASIS OF EVALUATION

The price proposal for the seed project (which may or may not be awarded) will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposal. One or more of 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.

Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Comparison of information reports obtained from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other outside agencies as required.

A price that is found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low 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.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/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-cost/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.

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 or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price realism rests solely with the Offeror.

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5

DESIGN #1 DESIGN #2 DESIGN #3 DESIGN #4 DESIGN #5

1. Experience for: Offeror Joint-Venture Other (Explain)

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

DUNS Number:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Title:

Location:

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

6. Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects. Complete Block 8 for Design Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Award Amount: Final Price:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (explain):

If Design-Build, identify the Lead Design Firm:______________________________________________

8. Design Project:

A/E Design Fee: Total Construction Value:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build RFP Development Designer of Record Engineering Services Full Plans & Specs

Other (explain):

9. Provide a detailed description of the project and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, square footage, construction methods), including any sustainable features or…