19R1313-AMD3.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Nov-2019

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6274219R1313

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Sep-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

RFP N62742-19-R-1313, MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PRIMARILY GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN FUNDED DEFENSE

POLICY REVIEW INITIATIVE PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF NAVFAC PACIFIC

Amendment no. 0003 is continued on page 2.

The proposal due date remains unchanged.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Nov-2019

CODE

HAND DELIVER

NAVFAC PACIFIC

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS BR (ACQ33)

4256 RADFORD DR, BLDG 62

HONOLULU HI 96818-3296

N62742 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

RFP No. N6274219R1313 Amendment No. 0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

DOCUMENT 00202 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Delete Document 00202 Evaluation Factors for Award pages 1through 12 and insert the attached Document 00202 Evaluation Factors for Award pages 1 through 12.

MACC FOR PRIMARILY GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN FUNDED DEFENSE POLICY REVIEW INITIATIVE

PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202

DOCUMENT 00202

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DICUSSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.3 RATING SCHEME

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet

(B) NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0)

(C) Small Business Subcontracting Record

(D) Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202

DOCUMENT 00202

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In phase-one, the Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors (not-to-exceed five) to submit proposals for phase-two without conducting discussions with any offeror; therefore, the initial phase-one proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer.

The Government intends to evaluate phase-two proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions;

therefore, the initial phase-two proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer from a non-price and price standpoint.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions during phase-one and/or phase-two if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. 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.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The Government shall consider the “offeror” to be the legal entity identified in Block 14 of the SF1442 of the phase-one proposal. The legal entity that submitted the phase-one offer shall not be changed, assigned, or otherwise substituted prior to award under any circumstances. The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., technical approach, subcontractors with teaming agreements, etc.) will be enforced for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award will be equal or better than as proposed and shall require Contracting Officer's approval prior to implementation.

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

A MACC is a contract awarded from a single solicitation, and may result in award to multiple contractors. This procurement consists of one solicitation with the intent to award a minimum of three (3) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type construction contracts to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s), conforming to the RFP, will be most advantageous to the Government resulting in the best value, price and non-price factors considered.

Successful offerors will compete for future work during the term of the contract. If determined to be in the best interest of the Government, less than 3 contracts may be awarded or the Government may cancel the procurement.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, this acquisition is based upon two-phase design-build selection procedures. Phase-one proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the phase-one evaluation factors and the most highly qualified phase-one offerors (not-to-exceed five) will be requested to submit phase-two

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202 proposals. At the conclusion of phase-two, the Government will select the best value offerors using the tradeoff source selection process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1 for award of the MACC.

The term “technical factors” refers to any non-price factor other than past performance. Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in phase-one and Factors 4-6 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for phase-two. In making the best value award decision after phase-two, the Government will consider Factors 2-6 and price. The relative importance of evaluation factors 2-6 is as follows: Technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6) are of equal importance to each other, and when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance factor (Factor 3).

When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are significantly more important than price. The contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible offerors whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offerors or other than the highest non-price rated offerors. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal 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.

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Past Performance

Phase-Two:

Factor 4: Safety Factor 5: Small Business Utilization Factor 6: Seed Project Management Plan

PHASE-ONE

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements at Document 00100, paragraph 1.1, including the proposed team’s ability to complete three task orders concurrently. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and the proposed lead design firm(s). If the offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint-Venture, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, etc.), the narrative shall describe the roles and responsibilities of each legal entity(s) comprising the offeror. The narrative shall be limited to three (3) double-sided page (or six (6) single-sided pages), 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to assess the offeror’s understanding of the General Requirements of the contract, the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and lead design firm(s), and their ability and capacity to complete three task orders concurrently. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) for each construction and design project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Attachment A submittals that do not comply with these requirements will not be evaluated. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

(1) Construction Experience

Submit a maximum of ten (10) construction projects that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below. If the offeror submits more than ten (10) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first ten (10) projects and disregard any other project information after the first ten (10). For purposes of this evaluation, the types of relevant construction projects are further defined as:

(1) New construction of multi-story administrative facilities (specifically headquarters and administration/office buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $30M or more.

(2) New construction of industrial facilities (specifically warehouses and maintenance buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $10M or more.

(3) New construction of educational facilities (specifically schools and training buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $20M or more.

(4) New construction of community support facilities (specifically fire station, police station, dining facility, fitness center, church, and recreation center) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $5M or more.

NOTES:

1. Relevant projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. “Substantially Complete” is defined as at least 90% physically complete.

2. Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL four (4) types of relevant construction projects shall be considered a deficiency.

3. Building repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as relevant project.

4. For the four types of relevant construction projects, “concrete building structure” shall be limited to cast-in-place or precast concrete roof and exterior wall construction. Reinforced masonry construction shall not be considered “concrete building structure”.

5. A project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant construction project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function if indicated by the offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type. For example, a headquarters building which also includes training and cafeteria/dining shall be identified by its primary function as an “headquarters building” under the multi-story administrative facilities type of relevant construction project and shall not be also considered as educational facilities, or community support facilities types. Indicate the primary function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. Or, if the offeror elects to submit a project with multiple functions for a major function that is not the primary function, the construction cost specific to the major function shall be depicted and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy. For example, if a large cafeteria/dining function approximately $5M or more is part of a headquarters building project, then that major function of that project may be submitted as a “community support facility”. Indicate the major function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. However, a single project may not be submitted for multiple relevant project types. For example, a headquarters building with a

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202 large cafeteria/dining function shall not be considered relevant projects for both “multi-story administrative facilities” and “community support facilities”.

6. A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

7. There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance.” Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

8. The “Offeror” is defined as the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442). If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is now part of the Offeror (separate legal entities are not considered part of the Offeror), the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage, or the key personnel it will provide in the performance or management of the contract. Note that generalized statements concerning commitment of resources are not sufficient to demonstrate that an entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the contract. Examples of “generalized statements” include a commitment of resources merely based on an entity’s “access” to resources and other generalized statements such as an entity will “provide support and expertise on the project.” The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that any entity (other than the Offeror and, if the offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of ten (10) design projects that best demonstrates design experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below. If the offeror submits more than ten (10) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first ten (10) projects and disregard any other project information after the first ten (10). For purposes of this evaluation, the types of relevant design projects are further defined as the design of:

(1) New construction of multi-story administrative facilities (specifically headquarters and administration/office buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $30M or more.

(2) New construction of industrial facilities (specifically warehouses and maintenance buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $10M or more.

(3) New construction of educational facilities (specifically schools and training buildings) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $20M or more.

(4) New construction of community support facilities (specifically fire station, police station, dining facility, fitness center, church, and recreation center) consisting of concrete building structure approximately $5M or more.

NOTES:

1. Construction of the relevant design projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. “Substantially complete” is defined as at least 90% physically complete.

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

2. Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL four (4) types of relevant design projects shall be considered a deficiency.

3. A project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant design project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function if indicated by the offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type. For example, a headquarters building which also includes training and cafeteria/dining shall be identified by its primary function as an “headquarters building” under the multi-story administrative facilities type of relevant design project and shall not be also considered as educational facilities, or community support facilities types. Indicate the primary function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. Or, if the offeror elects to submit a project with multiple functions for a major function that is not the primary function, the construction cost specific to the major function shall be depicted and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy. For example, if a large cafeteria/dining function approximately $5M or more is part of a headquarters building project, then that major function of that project may be submitted as a “community support facility”. Indicate the major function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. However, a single project may not be submitted for multiple relevant project types. For example, a headquarters building with a large cafeteria/dining function shall not be considered relevant projects for both “multi-story administrative facilities” and “community support facilities”.

4. A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build, complete design performed under a single task order or stand-alone A-E contract, or a complete design performed under a design-build construction contract.

For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

5. Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement for the designer-of-record(s) (DOR) if the DOR(s) is not the offeror. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall comply with Construction Experience Note 8.

6. For the four types of relevant design projects, “concrete building structure” shall be limited to cast-in-place or precast concrete roof and exterior wall construction. Reinforced masonry construction shall not be considered “concrete building structure”.

(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.

Offerors demonstrating experience with a larger variety of relevant design and construction projects (Administrative, Industrial, Educational, and Community Support Facilities) may be considered more favorably.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. If a completed CPARS or AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Design Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ - Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. If CPARS, CCASS, and ACASS exist, they will be considered in the evaluation

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202 of past performance over PPQs. PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. The offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offeror’s may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

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

Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger in total.

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

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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 rating. However, the Offeror with favorable past performance may be considered more favorably than an offeror with Neutral rating.

There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance”. Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

PHASE II (This section applies to offerors selected to submit phase-two proposals)

Factor 4 – Safety

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate EMR, TRC and DART Rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member; however, only one safety narrative is required. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has EMR, TRC and/or DART rates, then EMR, TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have EMR, TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are unable to provide them and submit EMR, TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member).

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Submit the EMR for three previous complete calendar years (2019, 2018, 2017). If the Offeror does not have EMR, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any negative EMR trends and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission. If the offeror has no EMR or equivalent rate for any of the three previous complete calendar years, affirmatively state so and explain why.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log and OSHA Form 300A summary for the three previous complete calendar years (2019, 2018, 2017). If an offeror does not have the OSHA DART or TRC rates, affirmatively state so and explain why and submit an equivalent based upon the OSHA formula used to calculate DART/TRC. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any increasing DART rate trends and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any increasing TRC rate trends and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) rate:

The DART rate is calculated by adding up the number of incidents involving work related deaths, one or more Lost Days, one or more Restricted Days, or the transfer of an employee to a different job within the same company, multiplying that number by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of DART incidents x 200,000 DART Rate = Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

The Total Recordable Case (TRC) is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000 TRC = Number of employee labor hours worked

“Recordable cases” include each work related death and each work related injury or occupational illness involving days away from work, restricted work, transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: 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. 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 be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor 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.

There is no page limitation to address paragraphs (1) and (2) above. The narrative to address paragraph (3) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger). Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Offeror’s EMR rates 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

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

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

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: 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 and 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), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns as subcontractors and proposed small business participation and commitment strategies.

(1) Achievements: All offerors shall provide a narrative (shall not exceed two (2) single-sided pages or (one (1) double-sided page) 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

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202 consistent with efficient contract performance. Provide the following in support of narrative submissions (excluded from page limitation):

a. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under the Experience Factor 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 the Experience Factor 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.

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 ($990,000,000.00) 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 (shall not exceed five (5) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger) 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.

(b) 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

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

Document 00202 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.

Factor 6 – Seed Project Management Plan

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) The Management Plan shall not exceed five (5) double-sided pages (or ten (10) single-sided pages) 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger in total. Narrative pages shall contain the page number from 1 through 10. Any page beyond the 10th page will not be evaluated. Page limitations exclude organization charts and plans.

(2) The Offeror shall submit a detailed narrative Management Plan describing how the Offeror intends to successfully complete the seed project work. At a minimum, the plan shall address the following:

(a) Organizational Chart. Provide a management organizational chart that identifies the lines of authority between the entities involved in the performance of the seed project. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2 for “Administrative Facilities”, this entity must be included in the organizational chart.

(b) Management Plan Narrative. Include the following:

(i) Management Structure. Describe the proposed management structure depicted in the Organizational

Chart. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6) for the execution of the seed project. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2 for “Administrative Facilities”, describe how this entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the seed project.

(ii) Management Strategy. Provide a strategy for managing the seed project and effectively coordinating all work to minimize disturbance to the surrounding buildings and construction activities.

(iii) Subcontractor Management. Provide a Strategy for effectively managing sub-contractors.

(iv) Quality Control Strategy. Discuss how management will ensure quality control.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s construction management plan will be evaluated for overall management of the project, minimizing disturbance to the surrounding buildings and construction activities and management of sub-contractors.

Note(s):

(1) Proposals that identify specific areas of risk in logistics, resource management, and technical challenges (including quality control) of this project, and provide a contingency plan that addresses the risks may be considered more favorably.

(2) Proposals that demonstrate “lessons learned” from prior construction of “relevant projects” (see Factor 2) and itemize proposed risk mitigation technique to be utilized for this project may be considered more favorably.

2.3 RATING SCHEME

The following information is pertinent to the rating of the non-price proposals:

a. Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

RFP N62742-19-R-1313

Amendment No. 0003

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

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

d. 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.

e. Any proposal found to have a deficiency will render a proposal ineligible for participation in phase-two and/or ineligible for award.

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

a. The SEED project pricing will be utilized for the price evaluation.

b. One or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the total price to ensure that it is fair and reasonable:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government Estimate;

c. The price proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest.