N6274221R1800_AMD 0002_FINAL.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 0002, SOLICITATION NO. N62742-21-R-1800, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PREDOMINATELY IN HAWAII, GUAM, THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI), AND OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVFAC) AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY WORLDWIDE AS NEEDED

PLEASE REVIEW THE AMENDMENT, COMPLETE BLOCKS 8 AND 15A THROUGH 15C TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT AND SUBMIT WITH YOUR

PROPOSAL.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Oct-2021

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 N6274221R1800

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Sep-2021

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 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Oct-2021

CODE

NAVFAC PACIFIC

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTS BR

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

JBPHH HI 96860-3134

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6274221R1800

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate revisions to the solicitation as identified below:

A. Provide Government responses to questions/clarifications received in response to the solicitation. See attached questions and answers for Amendment 0002.

B. The following section of the solicitation has been revised and are replaced with the document attached. Changes are annotated with a vertical line on the left hand border of the page and are indicated in track changes. Existing sections shall be removed and replaced.

Revisions to Section M:

(1) Replace Section M in its entirety with the revised Section M.

C. The following sections of the solicitation have been revised and are replaced with the documents attached.

Changes are annotated with a vertical line on the left hand border of the page and are indicated in track changes.

Revisions to Section J:

(1) Replace Attachment J-16 in its entirety with the revised Attachment J-16

(2) Replace Attachment J-17 in its entirety with the revised Attachment J-17.

D. Revisions to section J table of contents, Attachment J-17 title, changed to read “Sample Project Personnel Assignments Form”.

E. Amendment 0001 draft version is deleted and replaced with the final version with effective date of 20 October 2021 in this amendment. There are no changes to Amendment 0001 other than uploading the final version with effective date.

F. The due date for proposals remains unchanged.

G. All other sections/attachments remain unchanged.

The following have been deleted:

AMENDMENT 0001

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

CONTD

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 $23 million and the amount for the SBSA Division is approximately $26 million, for a combined Not-to-Exceed (NTE) aggregate amount of $49 million.

These amounts are subject to change based on the needed Natural 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 Non-Price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. All “Technical” factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all “Technical” factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are 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 Natural 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 (amongst both large and small businesses) 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 19.502-3(c)(1) & (2).

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

FACTOR 2, SAMPLE PROJECT

FACTOR 3, SAFETY

FACTOR 4, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

FACTOR 5, PAST PERFORMANCE

b. Price

2. The relative order of importance of the Non-Price 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 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 3.2 through 3.13.

b. A relevant project shall also be for an amount of at least $24,000 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 natural 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.

B. FACTOR 1, EXPERIENCE

(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.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Offerors shall use attachment J-14 to submit no more than eight (8) relevant natural resources projects completed within the past 5 years that individually or collectively are similar in scope and complexity to the specific tasks described in Section C., paragraphs 3.2 to 3.13. Project information shall be in the format set forth in Attachment J-14 template and clearly indicate which of the Section C Specific Tasks were performed in each contract or task order submitted. Clearly indicate whether the project was performed by the offeror or team subcontractor (see Note 4 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. The Offeror shall not submit more than 3 pages that are single-sided per project.

b. Key Personnel. Key Personnel for this MAC are one Principal and one Project Manager (Biological). See Attachment J-2 (Minimum Professional Qualifications) for the detailed qualifications required for these two Key Personnel positions. Offerors shall use Attachment J-15 to detail experience of the Principal and Project Manager for each specific task described in Section C paragraphs 3.2 to 3.13 of this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide information on a maximum of four (4) recent, relevant projects that were completed by each Key personnel that would demonstrate their project experience. The Offeror shall not submit more than 124 pages single-sided for allper Key Personnel. A letter of commitment shall be provided for each proposed key personnel, including subcontractor key personnel, who do not currently work for the Offeror. The letter of commitment shall include the key personnel’s role in the contract.

c. Page limit for Factor 1: Experience project information sheets are limited to a total of 24 pages single-sided or 12 pages double-sided. Key personnel information sheets are limited to a total of 128 pages single-sided or 64 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 and will not consider or evaluate any information beyond the page limit.

(3) Basis of Evaluation:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates recent relevant experience and key personnel experience by the offeror (including an evaluation of the applicable credentials such as training, education, and experience of Key Personnel) in performing the breadth and depth of specific tasks in Section C of this solicitation. Experience will be evaluated on the (1) complexity, (2) scope, (3) project size and (4) location of the work performed as compared to the requirements contemplated under this solicitation and described in Section C paragraphs 3.1 through 3.13.

b. Minimum Required Experience: To be considered for this contract, the Offeror must demonstrate experience (in project AND key personnel experience) in one subtask within each of the following five

(5) major specific tasks described in Section C of this solicitation:

3.2: Fauna Surveys

3.3: Flora Surveys 3.4: Wetlands

3.5: Habitat Restoration 3.6: Biosecurity

c. Desired Additional Competencies. The offeror will be evaluated more favorably on experience that involves two or more subtasks within the five major specific tasks described in section (3)b.

d. Desired Additional Competencies. The offeror will be evaluated more favorably on experience that involves the following types of specific items from Section C, listed below by section. For each additional task the offeror will be given an additional strength.

3.7: INRMPs 3.8: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Environmental Planning and Supporting Studies 3.9: Educational Outreach 3.10: Fire Management Plans 3.11: Aerial Mapping and GIS Mapping

e. Key Personnel: Key personnel must meet the education, training, and experience qualifications described in Attachment J-2 to be considered for this contract. Letters of commitment shall be submitted for all key personnel including subcontractor key personnel.

f. The Government may evaluate more favorably project experience working in Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands. Project experience that include key personnel who are currently employed by the offeror in the same or similar capacity, will be evaluated more favorably.

g. Offerors that demonstrate experience working for the Navy/Marine Corps may be evaluated more favorably.

h. Failure to use and completely fill out the templates referenced above or provide the required information may result in proposals being considered deficient for this Factor 1 Experience.

C. FACTOR 2, SAMPLE PROJECT

(1) Offerors shall demonstrate their technical approach for the sample project described in Attachment J-16.

This technical factor will be used to measure the Offeror’s understanding and probability of successfully accomplishing the effort. The sample project is for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded or result in a task order.

(2) Submittal Requirements:

a. Technical Approach: Submit a narrative describing the offerors proposed technical approach to accomplishing the requirements and include a project schedule. The technical approach submittal (including project schedule) shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages (or six (6) single-sided pages). Each page will utilize one-inch or larger on all four sides of the 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.

b. Staffing Plan: Use Attachment J-17, Sample Project Key Personnel Assignments, to list key personnel assigned to specific tasks in the sample project, including subcontractors. The staffing plan submittal shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). Offerors that have already provided Attachment J-15 under Factor 1 for the Key Personnel they want to assign to this Sample Project do not need to submit a second copy of Attachment J-15, or J-17. Offerors may state which key personnel will be used for the sample project and reference the Attachments J-15 submitted under Factor 1.

c. c. Assumptions: The offeror shall not make assumptions. If the offeror is not clear on the scope of the project, they shall submit their questions in writing in accordance with Section L, paragraph L2

INSTRUCTION FOR SUBMITTING QUESTIONS REGARDING SOLICITATION.

c.d. Page limit for Factor 2: The total page limit for Factor 2 is four (4) double-sided pages (or eight (8) single-sided pages). If the offeror exceeds the page limit, the Government evaluation team will stop reading and will not consider or evaluate any information beyond the page limit.

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's technical approach for the sample project (1) demonstrates an understanding of the scope of work, and (2) is a realistic approach for successful completion of the sample project within a reasonable time frame.

b. Proposals that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the technical and logistical complexities of the work will be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that offer added value through unique approaches to the scope of work will also be evaluated more favorably.

c. Proposals that cannot realistically or successfully accomplish the required tasks with the proposed approach/labor hours will be evaluated less favorably. Offerors failing to provide clarifying descriptions/details on how they intend to implement each task (beyond what is described in Attachment J-12 will be deemed to have failed to demonstrate an understanding of the work and will be evaluated less favorably.

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.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements.

a. The Offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

b. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

2. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

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

c. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

2. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Number of TCR incidents x 200,000

TCR Rate = Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

d. Technical Approach for Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

1. Describe the Offeror’s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System

(SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

2. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

3. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

4. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

e. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

a. The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR 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.

b. DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

2. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

3. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

4. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

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

c. TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

2. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

3. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or

Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

4. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR 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

d. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

1. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

2. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

3. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

4. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

e. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

E. FACTOR 4, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

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

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Small Business Participation and Commitment: All offerors shall submit a small business participation and commitment document including all data elements shown in Attachment J-18, Small Business Participation and Commitment Document.

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 (shall not exceed two (2) single-sided pages) to address other elements of the offeror’s strategy such as binding agreements, 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 20% of the total 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-18 consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors shall explain in their participation and commitment strategies how proposed participation rates were established. If the small business participation rate is below 20%, provide an explanation. 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. Historical achievements concerning utilization of small business concerns: There are no proposal submission requirements for historical achievements concerning utilization of small business concerns. The

Government reserves the right to consider achievements information on other recent, relevant projects from all available sources, such as CPARS and other past performance information.

Offerors will be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. Offerors will also be evaluated for their historical achievements concerning utilization of small business concerns. 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.

A copy of the blank form to be used for submission of Small Business Utilization is Attachment J- 18 Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy

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) 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-19 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.

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-15), 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 contacts, Ms. Casey Sugihara, via email at casey.sugihara@navy.mil, and Ms. Melissa Tsuha, via email at melissa.tsuha@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) The sample project will be utilized for the price evaluation. Offerors are required to use the template sample project price sheets (Attachments J-20) 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 sheet for sample projects 1 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 the sample project. 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. 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)