PAF160600_AMD1.pdf

20-Jun-2019 x

RFP N62742-19-R-1316

Amendment No. 0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (SF1442)

Delete pages 1 through 3 and replace with the attached pages 1 through 4.

DOCUMENT 00100, INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

Paragraph 1.1 NUMBER OF COPIES/TIME OF RECEIPT

Subparagraph a. PRICE PROPOSAL (PAPER). Line 2. Delete “27 June 2019” and insert “11 July 2019”.

Subparagraph b. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (FACTORS 1, 2, 3 AND 4) (PAPER). Line 2. Delete “27 June

2019” and insert “11 July 2019”.

Paragraph 1.5 PREAWARD SURVEY/RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

Delete the following subparagraph e:

“e. Copy of the email confirmation of receipt notification of successful submission of the VETS-4212.”

DOCUMENT 00202, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Delete pages 1 through 9 and attachments and replace with the attached pages 1 through 9 and attachments.

DOCUMENT 00700, NEGOTIATED CONTRACT CLAUSES

Delete pages 1 through 8 and replace with the attached pages 1 through 8.

DOCUMENT 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWINGS

Insert the attached Document 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWINGS after the Project Table of Contents. Drawings listed with Revision No. 0001 have been revised and accompany this amendment.

SPECIFICATION REVISIONS

The following specification sections are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the attached revised sections:

1. Section 01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK (Australia Requirements Schedule included)

2. Section 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

3. Section 01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

4. Section 01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS.

5. Section 03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE.

6. Section 26 11 16 SECONDARY UNIT SUBSTATIONS

7. Section 26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

8. Section 26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS.

9. Section 28 31 63.00 20 ANALOG/ADDRESSABLE INTERIOR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM.

10. Section 31 23 00.00 30 EXCAVATION AND FILL

11. Section 33 08 53 AVIATION FUEL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM START-UP

12. Section 33 09 53 AVIATION FUEL PUMP CONTROL AND ANNUNCIATION SYSTEM

13. Section 33 52 43.11 AVIATION FUEL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

14. Section 33 52 43.14 AVIATION FUEL CONTROL VALVES

15. Section 33 52 43.28 FILTER SEPARATOR, AVIATION FUELING SYSTEM

16. Section 33 56 13.13 STEEL TANKS WITH FIXED ROOFS

17. Section 33 56 19 FUEL IMPERMEABLE LINER SYSTEM

18. Section 33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

See Doc. 00100 See Doc. 00100

See Doc. 00100

808-471-2235

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD (SF 1442), CONTINUED

PRICE PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

FOR

RFP NO. N62742-19-R-1316

FY18 MCAF PROJECT PAF-160600, BULK FUEL STORAGE TANKS,

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

RFP N62742-19-R-1316

Amendment No. 0001

SF 1442 (Continued)

ITEM

NO.

DESCRIPTION QTY

UNIT OF

ISSUE AMOUNT

0001AA BASE ITEM: The basis for SLIN

0001AA is the price for all labor, material, and equipment for the entire work for WON 1581218 complete and in accordance with the drawings and specifications but not including work specified in SLINs 0001AB through

0001AC

1 Lump

Sum $________________

0001AB The basis for SLIN 0001AB is the price for ACM sampling event, which includes sampling, analysis and reporting in accordance with the drawings and specifications, and AUS regulations. Each sampling event includes 5 samples/analysis and a report. Each report shall address the presence of ACM and identify remedial action. Waterlines and communication lines identified on demolition drawings are not included.

4 Sampling

Event X $______________ unit cost per sampling event

0001AC The basis for SLIN 0001AC is the price for petroleum hydrocarbon sampling event, which includes sampling, analysis and reporting of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil in accordance with the drawings and specifications, and AUS regulations. Each sampling event includes 4 samples/analysis and a report. Each report shall address the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil and identify remedial action.

4 Sampling

Event X $______________ unit cost per sampling event

TOTAL CLIN 0001

(Total of SLINs

0001AA through

0001AC)

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD (SF 1442), CONTINUED

PRICE PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

FOR

RFP NO. N62742-19-R-1316

FY18 MCAF PROJECT PAF-160600, BULK FUEL STORAGE TANKS,

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

RFP N62742-19-R-1316

Amendment No. 0001

SF 1442 (Continued)

NOTES:

1. See Document 00202 for the Price Evaluation.

2. A firm-fixed-price is required for all line items. ALL OR NONE OFFERS - Offers are solicited on an

“all or none” basis and FAR 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMPETITIVE

ACQUISITION in Document 00100, is hereby modified. Failure to submit offers for all line items listed shall be cause for rejection of the offer.

3. Multiple awards will not be made.

4. It is the Government’s objective to award CLIN 0001 within the Military Construction funds available.

5. In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the total amount of a SLIN, the unit price will be held to be the intended price and the total amount will be adjusted accordingly. If the offer provides a total amount but fails to enter a unit price, the total amount divided by the specified quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

6. Payment for SLINs 0001AB and 0001AC shall be for actual quantities only. The unit price will be used to adjust the contract price for any increase or decrease in the estimated quantity subject to the following FAR clause

52.211-18, Variation in Estimated Quantity (APR 1984):

If the quantity of a unit priced item in this contract is an estimated quantity and the actual quantity of the unit priced item varies more than 15 percent above or below the estimated quantity, an equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made upon demand of either party. The equitable adjustment shall be based upon an increase or decrease in costs due solely to the variation above 115 percent or below 85 percent of the estimated quantity. If the quantity variation is such as to cause an increase in the time necessary for completion, the Contractor may request, in writing, an extension of time, to be received by the Contracting

Officer within 10 days from the beginning of the delay, or within such further period as may be granted by the Contracting Officer before the date of final settlement of the contract. Upon the receipt of a written request for an extension, the Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and make an adjustment for extending the completion date as, in the judgement of the Contracting Officer, is justified.

7. The CLIN 0001 price shall be exclusive of Australia Goods and Services Tax, see section 01 20 00.00

20 Price and Payment Procedures, for tax reimbursement procedures.

8. CONTRACTOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR WORK OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Contractors must be duly authorized to operate and conduct business in any host country and must fully comply with all laws, decrees, labor standards, and regulations of the host country during the performance of the contract. The

United States may have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), Force Posture Agreement, and other agreements with some countries and those agreements must be complied with. Unless explicitly provided in the RFP, the U.S.

Government will not offer “United States Official Contractor,” “Technical Representative,” or similar status under any SOFA; nor will the U.S. Government certify any employees of a contractor as “Members of the Civilian

Component” under a SOFA. Offerors are expected to familiarize themselves with the laws of host nations whether or not the United States Government provides notice of the existence of such requirements.

FY18 PAF160600 APR BULK FUEL STORAGE TANKS WON 1581218

DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

DOCUMENT 00202

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

2.4 RATING SCHEME

ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction Experience Data Sheet

(B) Past Performance Questionnaire

(C) Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306 (a)). Therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price standpoint.

Only the three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing and technical acceptability. If none of the three (3) lowest-priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then the next three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If none of the six (6) lowest priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then all remaining proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

The Government intends to select the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer and award a contract

(within the funds available) without conducting discussions.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions 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. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly rated. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals 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 proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the Offeror (as defined by the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442)) agrees that all work and services proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract. More specifically, by the submission of relevant experience and key personnel under Factors 1, and 3, the Offeror represents and agrees to utilize the specific entity/key personnel that performed the evaluated project(s)/work, as identified in Block 10 of

Attachment A, or Block 1 of Attachment C, for the performance of work of the same type for this contract. The

Offeror acknowledges that the Government shall rely on this representation and agreement, if award is made to the

Offeror. Additionally, by submission of a project under Factor 1: Experience that was self-performed by the

Offeror, the Offeror represents and agrees it will self-perform work of the same type for this contract. Furthermore, Offeror agrees that any substitutions of entities/key personnel will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer’s approval.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the lowest evaluated price of proposals (within the funds available) meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the technical evaluation factors. An overall technical factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be considered for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor will result in the overall technical proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” will make a proposal ineligible for award.

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

a. One or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the total evaluated prices 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

b. The price proposals will be listed from lowest to highest.

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors shall be used to evaluate the technical proposals.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

FACTOR 4: SAFETY

Factor 1 –EXPERIENCE:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment (A)) for each project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment (A) and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate relevant construction 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”

(210 x 279 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger for each project submitted.

Information exceeding the four (4) single-sided pages (or two (2) double-sided pages) will not be evaluated. 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 solicitation.

RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: Submit a maximum of six (6) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant construction projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation. The Government will only review the first six (6) submitted projects for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the first six (6) submitted will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is defined as a construction project that includes at least one of the following individual items:

1. Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tank. New construction of an American Petroleum Industry (API) 650 petroleum bulk fuel storage tank with a capacity of approximately 10,000 barrels or more. Projects submitted to demonstrate Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tank will only be considered if the work was performed by a specific entity proposed for the Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tank, as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A. Offerors shall provide certification from specific entity proposed, certifying that specific entity has successfully completed at least twelve (12) field erected API Std 650 aboveground tanks in the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The information provided in the certification shall include the project names, construction completion date, and configuration (e.g. vertical AST, horizontal AST).

2. Aviation Fuel System. New construction of an aviation fuel system consisting of piping that transports

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001 aviation fuel from storage tanks to receiving and dispensing facility and approximately $5 million or more in new construction value. For projects where the aviation fuel system is a portion of the overall project, the

Offeror must clearly identify that the value of the aviation fuel system is approximately $5 million or more.

Projects submitted to demonstrate Aviation Fuel System will only be considered if the work was performed by a specific entity proposed for the Aviation Fuel System, as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A.

3. Programmable Logical Controllers (PLC). Experience in new manufacturing, installation, and completion or substantial completion of at least one (1) Programmable Logical Controller (PLC) based pump control system for automatic cycling of pumps based upon varying dispensing demands utilizing multiple pumps for dispensing or receiving aviation fuel to and from storage tanks. Projects submitted to demonstrate

Programmable Logical Controllers will only be considered if the work was performed by a specific entity proposed for the Programmable Logical Controllers, as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A. Offerors shall provide certification from specific entity proposed, certifying that specific entity has manufactured, installed, and successfully completed at least five PLC-based systems for automatic cycling of pumps based upon varying dispensing demands ranging from 0 to 182 L/s utilizing multiple pumps. Certification must also state that the control systems have successfully operated over the last two (2) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and are currently in service. Certification shall include project names, and system description of these installations.

All submitted projects must have been completed or substantially completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. “Substantially completed” is defined as at least 90% physical completion. Certifications submitted for individual features (1) Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks and (3)

Programmable Logical Controllers are subject to the timeframes specified in their above descriptions.

Notes:

1. Projects submitted to demonstrate relevant construction individual items, i.e., (1) Petroleum Bulk Fuel

Storage Tanks, (2) Aviation Fuel Systems, and (3) Programmable Logical Controllers, will only be considered if the work was performed by the specific entity proposed to perform that type of work in this contract.

2. If the offeror self-performed the relevant construction individual items, i.e., (1) Petroleum Bulk Fuel

Storage Tanks, (2) Aviation Fuel Systems, and (3) Programmable Logical Controllers, then the offeror must confirm that it will self-perform the same relevant individual item(s) in order to be considered.

3. The construction projects submitted shall collectively demonstrate experience in all individual items: (1)

Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks, (2) Aviation Fuel Systems, and (3) Programmable Logical Controllers. Failure to demonstrate experience in all individual items shall be considered a deficiency and an unacceptable rating will be assigned for this factor. All individual items, or multiple individual items do not have to be within a single project scope.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001 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 as that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract. 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 in the performance of the contract at the worksite. 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.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme, below.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support

System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor

1. If a completed CPAR or CCASS evaluation is not available, then submit a Past Performance Questionnaire

(Attachment (B)) for each project included in Factor 1 for Construction Experience. Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQ) shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration. A PPQ shall not be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor. The

Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1. 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” (210 x 279 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger in total.

Notes:

1. 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. In addition, 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.

2. Performance awards, letter of appreciation, certificates, or additional information submitted will not be considered.

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

3. See Notes for Factor 1.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant construction projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other relevant construction projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government may consider information in the

Offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, Federal databases and other references. The information provided by the Offeror may provide the major portion of the information used in the Government’s evaluation for past performance. The Government however, is not restricted to the information provided by the Offeror and may use other sources (such as those listed in the submittal requirements) to assess past performance information.

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 Offeror’s relevant past 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 solicitation.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered “acceptable.”

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph 2.4

Rating Scheme, below.

Factor 3 – Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit an Attachment (C) to document each proposed key personnel’s (Project Superintendent and QC Manager) experience and qualifications. Offerors are only permitted to propose one (1) individual per Key

Personnel role (Project Superintendent, QC manager). If the Offeror submits more than one individual per role, the

Government will only evaluate the first individual listed per role and disregard any other individual’s information after the first individual listed. Attachment (C) and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate relevant key personnel experience and qualifications. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment (C) and all other information provided on other than Attachment (C) will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment (C); however, Attachment (C) 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”

(210 x 279 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger for each project submitted.

Information exceeding the four (4) single-sided pages (or two (2) double-sided pages) will not be evaluated.

Experience:

Demonstrate the key personnel (Project Superintendent and QC manager) have relevant experience in in the new construction of Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks and Aviation Fuel System projects as those items are defined in

Factor 1—Experience. Submission of information on each key personnel’s construction experience is limited to a maximum of four (4) projects. If the Offeror submits more than four (4) projects for each key personnel, the

Government will evaluate the first four (4) projects and disregard any other project information after the first four

(4).

Qualifications:

(1) Demonstrate that the proposed Project Superintendent meets the following qualifications:

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

The project superintendent must have a minimum of 10 years of experience in construction with at least 5 of those years (combined) as a superintendent in the new construction of Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks and Aviation

Fuel System projects, as they are defined in Factor 1—Experience. The individual must be familiar with the Work

Health and Safety Regulations 2011, and have experience in the areas of hazard identification, and safety compliance. The individual must be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings.

(2) Demonstrate that the proposed Quality Control Manager meets the following qualifications:

A graduate of a four year accredited college or university program in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, Engineering Technology, Building Construction, or Building Science, with a minimum of 10 years of experience as a Project Superintendent, QC Manager, Project Manager, Project Engineer or Construction Manager on new construction of Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks and Aviation Fuel System projects, as they are defined in Factor 1—Experience. The individual must have at least two years of experience as a

QC Manager. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011, and have experience in the areas of hazard identification, and safety compliance.

In order to properly evaluate the proposals, each proposal shall clearly indicate the number of years of QC Manager and Superintendent experience and shall not show combined experience, such as, Superintendent/QC manager for three years. The key personnel shall be employees of the Offeror’s firm. If the proposed key personnel are not currently employed by the Offeror, the Offeror shall obtain a letter of intent to be employed by the Offeror, signed by the key personnel and the Offeror and shall be submitted with the proposal.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 3, and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme below.

Factor 4 – Safety

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate 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 TRC and/or DART rates, then 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 TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member.)

1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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 for the three previous complete calendar years (2018, 2017, and 2016). 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/or any DART rates exceeding 4.0 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any increasing TRC rate trends and/or any TRC rates exceeding 5.99 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

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001 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

Total Recordable Case (TRC) rate:

The TRC rate 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 Rate= 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.

2. 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 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.

There is no page limitation to address paragraph (1) above. The narrative to address paragraph (2) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11” (210 x 297 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger). Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

Notes:

1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of Safety from any and all sources including sources outside 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.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 5, and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme below.

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202

AMENDMENT No. 0001

2.4 RATING SCHEME

The following information is pertinent to the rating of the technical proposals:

a. Deficiency: A material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement.

b. If the proposal contains an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating for any of the Factors, the overall rating of the technical proposal will be “UNACCEPTABLE”. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE makes a proposal ineligible for award.

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE:

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

ACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/ unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3 – KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATIONS:

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 4 - SAFETY:

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202 – ATTACHMENT A

AMENDMENT NO. 0001

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5 CON #6

1. Name of Firm that Performed Relevant Individual Feature*:

Address:

Phone Number: Entity Identifier (DUNS #):

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

a. If the firm that performed the project 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.

b. Name of Firm Experience is Claimed for* (i.e.; if the project was performed by a J/V and Offeror is claiming experience of one of the J/V members, state the exact legal name of the JV member Offeror claims experience for):

Address:

Phone Number: Entity Identifier (DUNS #):

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.

7. Construction Project:

Total 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:

N62742-19-R-1316

DOCUMENT 00202 – ATTACHMENT A

AMENDMENT NO. 0001

8. Construction Project Details:

a. Project involved new API 650 Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tank: [ ] Yes [ ] No

Size of the API 650 Petroleum Bulk Fuel Storage Tank approximately 10,000 bbls or more? [ ] Yes [ ] No

b. Project involved new Aviation Fuel System: [ ] Yes [ ] No

Cost of the Aviation Fuel System approximately $5 million or more? [ ] Yes [ ] No

c. Project involved new Programmable Logical Controllers: [ ] Yes [ ] No

9. Provide a detailed description of the project and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

10. Provide a detailed description of the relevant individual item(s) that was/were performed on this project AND the specific entity that performed the item(s). If the Offeror self-performed the item(s), then the Offeror confirms that it will also self-perform the item(s) for this contract. NOTE: The Offeror cannot claim to have performed the item(s) if performed by a subcontractor or any other entity. If the item(s) was/were performed by ANY entity other than the Offeror (name is not exactly as the SF1442), specifically provide the following information:

a. Name of entity that performed and will perform the relevant construction item(s):

b. Relationship between Offeror and entity proposed to perform relevant construction item(s) (i.e., Member, Parent, Subcontractor, Business unit (as defined in FAR 2.101)):

c. Detailed Description of the relevant individual item(s) that was/were performed by the above listed entity:

DOCUMENT 00202 - ATTACHMENT B

AMENDMENT No. 0001

ATTACHMENT B

NAVFAC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly DUNS):

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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 the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine

How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE

OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY

DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED

TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO

NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

AMENDMENT No. 0001

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the

Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the

Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the

Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

AMENDMENT No. 0001

Contractor Information (Firm Name):

Client Information (Name):

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION

OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff

(including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

AMENDMENT No. 0001

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

(including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

DOCUMENT 00202 – Attachment C

AMENDMENT No. 0001

ATTACHMENT C

OFFEROR’S NAME:

KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATIONS

Type of Key Personnel (check one): Project Superintendent QC Manager

1. Name of Individual:

2. Current Employment

Name of Firm*: Title/Position held:

Dates of Employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY):

*If name of firm name does not match exactly the Offeror as listed in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer, and Award

(SF1442), Offeror shall submit with its proposal, a letter of intent of the key personnel to be employed by the Offeror, signed by the key personnel.

3. Previous/Other Relevant Employment

a. Name of Firm: Title/Position held:

Dates of Employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY): -

b. Name of Firm: Title/Position held:

Dates of Employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY): -

4. Relevant Education (QC Manager Only):

Name of University: Type of Degree:

Specialization/Major: Year Graduated:

5. Professional Registration (if any) (QC Manager Only):

Type of Professional Registration/License:…