SECTION M 062920.pdf

AMENDMENT 0001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. EVALUATION AND BASIS OF AWARD

M1 GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN OBSERVERS

M2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

M3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

M4 BASIS OF AWARD

M5 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

M6 COMPETITIVE RANGE

M7 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / FOR AWARD

M8 TECHNICAL AND PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1 GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN OBSERVERS: Offerors are advised that officials of the Government of Japan (GOJ) will be observing the source selection process, the evaluation of proposals and the review of other documentation. Accordingly, submission of a proposal in response to this synopsis and referenced solicitation will be considered evidence of your consent and permission for the Contracting Officer to reveal your proposal and related submissions to participating GOJ officials (who shall each sign a Non-Disclosure Statements that will be retained in the contract files).

M2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

This procurement consists of a single solicitation with the intent to award no more than six (6) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type service contracts to the offerors whose proposals, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous to the Government resulting in the best value, price and technical factors considered. The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) contracts in each of the two Divisions, unless all successful offerors are small business concerns—which would eliminate the need for two Divisions (see M4 below). The Government reserves the right to award more than six (6) contracts if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Successful awardees (also called MAC Holders) will compete for future work during the term of the multiple award contracts.

M3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

The estimated workload for the Unrestricted Division is approximately $5 million and the amount for the SBSA Division is approximately $44 million, for a combined Not-to-Exceed (NTE) aggregate amount of $49 million.

These amounts are subject to change based on the needed Cultural Resources Management Services specific tasks ordered by the Government.

M4 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to those responsible Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering “Price” and “Technical” evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. The “technical” evaluation factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than “price.” Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposals offering the “Best Value” to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decisions.

2. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

3. As set forth in Section H, paragraph H1, this Cultural Resources Management Services MAC will be competed as an unrestricted procurement with a partial small business set-aside. The resulting multiple award contracts will be comprised of two major divisions: An Unrestricted Division established for competing and awarding task orders to perform Government of Japan (GOJ) funded projects that support the Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI)/Guam Realignment, and a partial Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Division established for competing projects funded by United States appropriations (in support of either DPRI or non-DPRI requirements). The selection of the MAC Holders will be made in the manner described below as required by FAR 19.502-4(c).

a. The contracting officer shall award the non-set-aside portion (Unrestricted Division) using normal contracting procedures.

b. After all awards have been made on the non-set-aside portion, the contracting officer shall negotiate with eligible concerns on the set-aside portion (SBSA Division), as provided in the solicitation, and make award. Negotiations shall be conducted only with those offerors who have submitted responsive offers on the non-set-aside portion (Unrestricted Division).

c. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Section 1331, and the Small Business Administration Final Rule (effective 31 DEC 2013), the set-aside portion will be competed amongst all Small Business Concerns that submitted responsive offers for the non-set-aside portion of the solicitation.

d. While the non-set-aside portion (Unrestricted Division) will utilize normal contracting procedures (as set forth in FAR Part 15), it is possible that one or more of the offerors determined to be the most advantageous to the Government could be small business concerns. If all successful offerors in the Unrestricted Division are small business concerns, the Government may elect not to award additional contracts under the SBSA Division.

M5 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors, except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the Offeror’s best offer from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if discussions are deemed necessary.

M6 COMPETITIVE RANGE

If discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government's ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly rated proposals, considering price and technical factors. In addition, if the Government 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 Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M7 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

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

M8 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The evaluation factors are as follows:

a. Non-Price factors are as follows:

FACTOR 1, EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM

FACTOR 2, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

FACTOR 3, SAFETY

FACTOR 4, SAMPLE PROJECTS (2)

FACTOR 5, PAST PERFORMANCE

b.Price

2. The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors are as follows: Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are of equal importance to each other, and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment Factor 5. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined are significantly more important than the price factor. The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if the price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS (FACTORS 1 – 5).

A .NOTES Applicable to Factor 1, Experience of The Firm and Factor 5, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects:

(1) Definition of “recent relevant project” is as follows:

a. In general, relevant project means projects whose scopes of work were similar to the types of projects that may be ordered against this MAC that require the performance of one or more of the Specific Tasks described in Section C, paragraphs 2.1 through 2.54.

b. A relevant project shall also be for an amount of at least $50,000 in dollar value and shall be at least 80% completed from the issuance date of this solicitation. A relevant project shall involve performance that involved the application of Federal regulatory requirements in carrying out cultural resources management services. A relevant project must either be a standalone contract or task order under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract. The submission of information or the description of the scope of a Basic IDIQ contract will not be considered a relevant project.

c. Recent is defined as five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

(2) The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts

(3) If an Offeror is utilizing or relying on experience or past performance information from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent companies/LLC/LTD member companies (where their name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the experience, past performance, and/or key personnel information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state the specific resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will commit toward the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated in the proposal, the affiliate, subsidiary or parent company’s experience or past performance and/or key personnel information will not be considered.

(4) A subcontractor’s experience and past performance will not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner because there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and a subcontractor. The Government may consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor where the prime contractor provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor. However, the level of consideration will depend on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor's commitment to the project and legal accountability and will not be accorded the same level of consideration as a prime contractor or joint venture partner’s experience or past performance.

(5) Prime contractor-subcontractor teams/Joint Ventures/LLCs/LTDs with a demonstrated history of working successfully together on prior projects may be considered more favorably than those without such history. Similarly, Joint Ventures with a demonstrated history of working successfully together on prior projects may be considered more favorably than those without such history.

6. A subcontractor’s past performance will not be given the same weight as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner because there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and the subcontractor. The Government will consider the past performance of a subcontractor where the prime contractor provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreements shall, at a minimum (1) be signed by the offeror and subcontractor, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the subcontractor such that it is clear that the subcontractor will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with the subcontractor’s role in the project submitted. However, the level of consideration will depend on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor's commitment to the project and legal accountability.

B. FACTOR 1, EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM

(1) This factor considers the breadth and depth of the offeror’s experience and expertise in performing the requirements of this solicitation and their ability to recruit and employ qualified Key Personnel. Offerors shall provide no more than eight (8) relevant cultural resources projects completed within the past 5 years. Project information shall be in the format set forth in Attachment J-9 template and clearly indicate which of the Section C Specific Tasks were performed in each contract or task order submitted.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Submit no more than eight (8) project information sheets. Project information shall contain the specific types of information and be in the format set forth in the Attachment J-9 template (Offeror’s Past Performance / Experience Information). Clearly indicate whether the project was performed by the offeror or team subcontractor (see Note 6 above on applicability of subcontractor experience) and list which of the Section C Specific Tasks were performed in each contract or task order submitted in response to Factor 1.

b. Project information sheets shall also address the following (if applicable to the contract or task order): description of regulatory and stakeholder interactions; and period of performance (to include original contract/task order award date, original project completion date, the actual completion date—with an explanation for any late finish).

c. Page limit for Factor 1: Project information sheets are limited to a total of 32 pages single-sided or 16 pages double-sided. Each page will utilize one-inch or larger margins on all four sides of the page and print type of no less than font size 11. Each page shall be numbered and the page number may print within the margin at the bottom of each page. If the offeror exceeds the page limit, the Government evaluation team will stop reading at the end of page 32 and will not consider or evaluate any information beyond the page limit.

d. Key Personnel. Key Personnel for this MAC are Principal Investigator, Project Director, and Architectural Historian. See Section C, paragraphs 9.1, 9.2, and 9.13 for the detailed qualifications required for these three Key Personnel positions. In addition to identifying the Key Personnel previously employed under each project (as cited on the project information sheets), Offerors shall submit the resumes for the former Key Personnel or explain why the resumes are not available. Resumes will not count towards the page limit cited in paragraph B(2)c above. (The Government evaluation team realizes that not all projects may employ all three of the Key Personnel positions.)

(3) Basis of Evaluation:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates recent relevant experience by the offeror in performing cultural resources management services. The offeror’s depth and breadth of experience will be evaluated in terms of their ability to perform as many of the Specific Tasks listed in Section C, paragraph 2.1 through 2.54.

b. Projects with values greater than $100,000 may be evaluated more favorably.

c. Offerors that demonstrate experience in performing cultural resource management services at sites in both Hawaii and Guam will be evaluated more favorably. Offerors that can demonstrate experience in performing cultural resource management services at sites in Japan, may also be evaluated more favorably.

d. Required Competencies. At a minimum, Offerors shall be able to demonstrate experience at performing the following Specific Tasks (see Section C, paragraphs 2.1 through 2.54 for descriptions/requirements to performing the following Specific Tasks):

2.1 Archaeological Survey: Phase I Reconnaissance

2.2 Archaeological Survey: Phase II Detailed Recording/Inventory Survey

2.3 Archaeological Subsurface Testing

2.4 Archaeological Monitoring

2.6 Archival Research

2.15 Cultural Resource Management Overview Surveys

2.16 Data Recovery

2.24 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

2.26 Historical Architecture Studies

2.30 Historic Preservation Studies

2.31 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMP)

2.33 Laboratory Analysis

2.38 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Nomination Form Preparation

e. Desired Additional Competencies. Offerors that can demonstrate experience at performing the following Specific Tasks (see Section C, paragraphs 2.1 through 2.54 for descriptions/requirements to performing the following Specific Tasks) in addition to the Required Competencies cited above in paragraph d. may be evaluated more favorably:

2.12 Chemical Soils & Sediment Analysis

2.14 Cultural and Historical Interpretation

2.18 Document & Other Media Translation

2.22 Fieldwork in Areas with Potential or Known Hazardous Waste or Hazardous

Materials

2.25 Geomorphological Studies.

2.28 Historic American buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record

(HAER)/Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS)

2.29 Historic/Cultural Landscape Studies

2.40 Photographic Documentation

2.48 Recovery of Human Remains and Associated Materials

2.51 Scientific Illustration

2.52 Site Protection

f. Key Personnel: Resumes for all four types of Key Personnel (Principal Investigator (Archaeology), Principal Investigator (Historical Architecture and Landscape), Project Director (Archaeology), and Project Director (Historical Architecture and Landscape) where the Key Personnel individuals’ qualifications significantly exceed minimum requirements set forth in Section C, paragraphs 9.27, 9.28, 9.29 and 9.30, respectively, may be evaluated more favorably.

C. FACTOR 2, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

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

a. Definitions: “SB” as used herein, is intended to include Small Business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business concerns (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business concerns (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business concerns (HUBZone), Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business concerns (SDVOSB). All small business programs are self-certifying programs with the exception of HUBZone certifications, see HUBZone SB Certifications below. Small Business Program requirements and definitions may be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 19.

b. HUBZone SB Certifications: Offerors are reminded that HUBZone SB concerns must obtain formal certification from the Small Business Administration (SBA) if they expect to receive the evaluation benefits associated with the HUBZone SB programs either as a prime or subcontractor(s). For more information on the HUBZone SB certification requirements and available benefits, contact your local SBA representative. Certified HUBZone SB firms are listed on the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) website at http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to periodically check the DSBS as certifications are subject to change.

(2)Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

i. All offerors shall submit small business subcontracting information associated with each project cited under Factor 1, Experience of the Firm, in the format provided in Attachment J-10, Small Business Subcontracting Record.

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

Notes:

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

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

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

b.Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment strategy including all data elements shown in Attachment J-11, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy.

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

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

iii. 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 37% 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 J-11 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.

(1) Basis of Evaluation:

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

The proposed goals and NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracted values. The minimum NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are as follows:

Program Prime Contracting Target Subcontracting Target Small Business 37% 40% Small Disadvantaged Business 24% 5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone 6% 3% Women-Owned Small Business 6% 9% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 4% 3%

A copy of the blank forms to be used for offeror submission of Small Business Utilization are included as follows:

Attachment J-10, Small Business Subcontracting Record; Attachment J-11 Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy, D. FACTOR 3, SAFETY:

(1)This Factor assesses how the Contractor consistently demonstrates a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview. The Safety evaluation of the following three elements will be collectively considered: Experience Modification Rate (EMR); Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Job Restriction or Job Transfer (DART), and Total Recordable Case (TRC); and Technical Approach to Safety.

(2).Solicitation Submittal Requirements.

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 it is 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 onsite construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member.

a. 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. If the offeror has no EMR or equivalent rate for any of the three previous complete calendar years, affirmatively state so and explain why. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any EMRs exceeding 1.1 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences.

b. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: 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, and 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 DART rates exceeding 4.0 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for 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:

The OSHA 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 OSHA 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.

c. 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 contractor 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 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.

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

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government a.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. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation b.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.

Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

c.Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

d.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.

E. FACTOR 4, SAMPLE PROJECTS

(1) Offerors are provided with two (2) sample projects and shall describe their technical approach to performing and completing the projects. See Attachment J-5, Sample Project I and Attachment J-6, Sample Project II. The Sample Projects are for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded or result in a task order.

(2) Submittal Requirements:

a. Technical Approach: For each Sample Project, submit a narrative describing the offerors proposed technical approach to accomplishing the requirements and include a project schedule. Demonstrate how your proposed technical approach (innovative or traditional) will reduce costs and time while meeting all regulatory and contract requirements. Address methods used to ensure that technical work, document quality and schedules are adhered to according to each scope of work;

b. Staffing Resources: Provide a narrative describing your proposed plan for field staffing and include an organization chart for each Sample Project. Identify potential use of local resources and your firm’s ability to handle unexpected surges in workload to meet deadlines. In addition, provide a detailed description of the key personnel that you propose to use and describe their level of experience and expertise.

c. List assumptions for each sample project (i.e., basis for level of effort / specific tasks proposed, etc.).

(3) Basis of Evaluation:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's technical approach for the sample projects demonstrates a proper understanding of the work and is a realistic approach for completion of the sample projects within a plausible timeframe.

b. Incorporating the appropriate labor, identifying the necessary specific tasks, and project staff.

c. Project scheduling and coordination of work with a logical sequencing of events towards timely completion, based on realistic and reasonable estimates of work to be performed.

d. Methodology of operations and conducting the work, with innovative and proven work strategies that save time and cost, including project-specific sub-tasks, i.e. research; fieldwork, laboratory work, and/or analysis will be evaluated based on efficient, appropriate and applicable methods for each task.

e. Developing appropriate project-specific plans (e.g., work plans, research designs, data recovery or monitoring plans, etc.).

f. Identifying and conforming to applicable federal statutes, regulations, standards, and guidelines.

F. FACTOR 5, PAST PERFORMANCE:

(1) The Offeror’s past performance evaluation will be based upon customer satisfaction in the execution of the same recent relevant projects submitted for Factor 1 (Experience of The Firm) and completed or substantially completed within the last five (5) years. Customer satisfaction will include assessing quality control and timely performance.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as Attachment J-9 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Experience of The Firm. AN

OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

b. IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment J-9) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Velma Wong, via email at velma.wong@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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

d. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

e. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.”

(3) Basis of Evaluation: Past performance relevancy will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

a. A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

b. A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

c. A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

d. Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

e. A respect for stewardship of Government funds.

4. PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR:

A. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) Two Sample Projects will be utilized for the price evaluation. Offerors are provided with two (2) Sample Projects (Attachments J-5 and J-6) and are required to use the template sample project price sheets (Attachments J-7 and J-8) and include all pricing information as specified for the five (5) subline items 0001AA through 0001AE and the Total Amount.

(2) Offerors shall submit their completed sample project price sheets for Sample Projects 1 and 2 in their Price Proposal binder/folder (see Section L for additional information).

B. Basis of Evaluation:

(1) The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated to verify the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and to assess the accuracy and price reasonableness in performance of each of the sample projects. An offeror’s price may be deemed unbalanced if its prices are found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work, which may result in a less than favorable rating.

(2) The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Total Price. Total Price consists of the sum for all offered amounts for all five (5) subline items 0001AA through 0001AE for both sample projects. The Government may utilize one of more of the following price analysis techniques:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate.

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

(d) Comparison to market survey results.