AMD 02 22R1317.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

N62742-22-R-1317, FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR U.S. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF NAVFAC PACIFIC

See Next Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-May-2022

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 N6274222R1317

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Apr-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-May-2022

CODE

NAVFAC PACIFIC

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS BR (CODE ACQ33)

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR 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:

N6274222R1317

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

This amendment is issued to revise the following:

1. Document 00 22 00, Evaluation Factors for Award, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Document 00 22 00, Evaluation Factors for Award-Rev 1. Revisions are shown in red font.

2. Document 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications for Contracting By Negotiations is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Document 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications for Contracting By Negotiations- Rev1. Revisions are shown in red font.

3. Document 00 70 00, is revised to delete 1.177 DFARS 252.223-7999, Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractor (Deviation 2021-O0009)(OCT 2021) in its entirety and to replace it with “1.177

NOT USED.”

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

End of Amendment

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR U.S.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD-REV 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DICUSSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.3 RATING SCHEME

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS

A Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet B NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) C Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) D Small Business Subcontracting Plan (template)

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, this acquisition is based upon two-phase design-build selection procedures. In phase-one, the Government intends to select the most highly qualified Offerors (minimum of three (3)) to submit proposals for phase-two without conducting discussions with any Offeror; therefore, the initial phase-one proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer.

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

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

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions during phase-one and/or phase-two if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The Government shall consider the “Offeror” to be the legal entity identified in Block 14 of the SF1442 of the phase-one proposal. The legal entity that submitted the phase-one offer shall not be changed, assigned, or otherwise substituted prior to award under any circumstances. The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract.

By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., technical approach, subcontractors with teaming agreements, etc.) will be enforced for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award shall be equal or better than as proposed and shall require the Contracting Officer's approval prior to implementation.

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

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

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

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

Phase-one proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the phase-one evaluation factors and the most highly qualified phase-one Offerors (minimum of three (3)) will be requested to submit phase-two proposals. At the conclusion of phase-two, the Government will select the best value Offerors using the tradeoff source selection process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1 for award of the MACC.

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

The term “technical factors” refers to any non-price factor other than past performance. Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in phase-one and Factors 4 and 5 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable.

If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, they will not be considered for phase-two, unless the deficiencies are corrected through discussions. In making the best value award decision in phase-two, the Government will consider Factors 2 through 5 and price. The relative importance of evaluation factors 2 through 5 is as follows: Technical factors (Factors 2, 4, and 5) are of equal importance to each other, and when combined, are equal in importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) factor (Factor 3). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) shall be considered significantly more important than price. The contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offerors whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest non-price rated Offerors. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposals offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance)

Phase-Two:

Factor 4: Safety Factor 5: Small Business Participation

PHASE-ONE

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements at Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.1, including the proposed team’s ability to successfully complete three task orders concurrently. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm(s). If the Offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint-Venture, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, etc.), the narrative shall describe the roles and responsibilities of each legal entity(s) comprising the Offeror. The narrative shall be limited to three (3) double-sided pages or six (6) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Factor 2 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1 only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Attachment A submittals that do not comply with these requirements will not be evaluated. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

(1) Construction Experience

Submit a maximum of six (6) construction projects that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below. If the Offeror submits more than six

(6) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first six (6) projects and disregard any other project information after the first six (6). For purposes of this evaluation, the types of relevant construction projects are further defined as:

(1) New construction of multi-story administrative, office, or headquarters facilities, approximately $30M or more.

(2) New construction of industrial facilities, specifically warehouses or maintenance buildings, approximately $10M or more.

(3) New construction of community support facilities, specifically schools, child care centers, training buildings, theaters, retail or recreation centers, approximately $30M or more.

NOTES:

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

2. Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL three (3) types of relevant construction projects shall be considered a deficiency.

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

4. A project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant construction project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function as indicated by the Offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type. As an example of primary function, a headquarters building which also includes a child care center shall be identified by its primary function as a “headquarters building” under the multi-story administrative facilities type of relevant construction project and shall not be considered as an educational facility. Indicate the Primary Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. Or, if the Offeror elects to submit a project with multiple functions for a major function (that is not the primary function), the construction cost specific to the major function shall be clearly stated and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy. As an example of major function, if submitting relevant project information on a large maintenance building approximately $10M or more which is a part of a headquarters building project, the major function of that project may be submitted as an “industrial facility.” Indicate the Major Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block

9. However, a single project may not be submitted for multiple relevant project types. For example, a headquarters building with a maintenance building shall not be considered relevant projects for both “multi-story administrative facility” and “industrial facility.”

5. 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.

6. 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.

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

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

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of six (6) design projects that best demonstrates design experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below. If the Offeror submits more than six (6) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first six (6) projects and disregard any other project information after the first six (6). For purposes of this evaluation, the types of relevant design projects are further defined as the design of:

(1) New construction of multi-story administrative, office, or headquarters facilities, approximately $30M or more.

(2) New construction of industrial facilities, specifically warehouses or maintenance buildings, approximately $10M or more.

(3) New construction of community support facilities, specifically schools, child care centers, training buildings, theaters, retail or recreation centers, approximately $30M or more.

NOTES:

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

2. Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL three (3) types of relevant design projects shall be considered a deficiency.

3. A project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant design project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function as indicated by the Offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type. As an example of primary function, a headquarters building which also includes a child care center shall be identified by its primary function as a “headquarters building” under the multi-story administrative facilities type of relevant construction project and shall not be considered as an educational facility. Indicate the Primary Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. Or, if the Offeror elects to submit a project with multiple functions for a major function (that is not the primary function), the construction cost specific to the major function shall be clearly stated and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy. As an example of major function, if submitting relevant project information on a large maintenance building approximately $10M or more which is a part of a headquarters building project, the major function of that project may be submitted as an

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

“industrial facility.” Indicate the Major Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9.

However, a single project may not be submitted for multiple relevant project types. For example, a headquarters building with a maintenance building shall not be considered relevant projects for both “multi-story administrative facility” and “industrial facility.”

4. A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build, complete design performed under a single task order or stand-alone A-E contract, or a complete design performed under a design-build construction contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

5. Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement between the Offeror and the designer-of-record(s) (DOR), if the DOR(s) is not the Offeror. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror (authority to bind the entity must be clearly stated) and the DOR, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the DOR such that it is clear that the DOR will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with the DOR’s role in the project submitted for evaluation. The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that the DOR will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the relevant project experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Proposals demonstrating experience with a larger variety of relevant design and construction projects may be considered more favorably.

If the Offeror utilizes a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience, the project may not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor, a joint venture partner, or LLC member company, because there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and the subcontractor. Proposals that utilize a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience may be lesser considered.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. If a completed CPARS or AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Design Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ - Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The same CPARS/CCASS evaluation may be submitted for the DOR if the CPARS/CCASS specifically evaluated the DOR’s performance for quality, schedule, management, small business subcontracting and regulatory compliance. If not, a PPQ solely evaluating the DOR’s performance shall be provided. PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. The Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offeror’s may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

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

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

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

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

Performance awards or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

A subcontractor’s past performance may not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor, a joint venture partner, or LLC member company, because there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and the subcontractor. Proposals that utilize a subcontractor’s past performance information may be lesser considered.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral rating. However, the Offeror with favorable past performance may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with a Neutral rating.

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

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

Factor 4 – Safety

(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) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member).

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log and OSHA Form 300A summary for the five (5) previous complete calendar years (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017). If an Offeror does not have the OSHA DART and/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 for any DART rate 2.99 or higher and

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1 the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation for any TRC rate 4.49 or higher and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

DART Rate:

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

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

TRC Rate:

The 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.

(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. 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. Describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe their methodology to execute an effective program that utilizes 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”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger).

Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

(1) OSHA DART and TRC Rates: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s history of safe work practices considering the OSHA DART and TRC rates against the Navy standards and explanations for DART and TRC rates in the moderate risk category or higher.

Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

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

(2) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the technical approach to determine the degree of effectiveness in regards to the selection of safe subcontractors and the evaluation of their post award safety performance (all levels of subcontractors). The evaluation will also consider the degree to which proposed innovations enhance safety performance. Further, the proposed approach facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

(3) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

Factor 5 – Small Business Participation

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) The Government will utilize CPARS and eSRS to retrieve and assess the Offeror’s past performance information for Small Business Participation; therefore, there are no proposal submission requirements for Small Business past performance. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance.

(2) The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document, Attachment C, which specifies the Offeror’s level of commitment to small business utilization in performance of this requirement. This acquisition has a Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQR) of 20% of the Total Contract Value (TCV) not-to-exceed amount of $2,500,000,000. The MQR is the percentage of TCV to be performed by small businesses as a prime or subcontractor. Proposals which do not meet the MQR will be Unacceptable. A Small Business Participation Commitment Document is required from all Offerors, including companies with commercial or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall address the following:

a. The extent of participation by small businesses (SB) to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns, HUBZone small business concerns (HUBZone), small disadvantaged business concerns (SDB), and women-owned small business concerns (WOSB).

b. Level of commitment to use such firms.

c. Types of work the small business firms are to perform.

d. Statement of quantitative degree to which small businesses (including small businesses in all socio-economic categories) will participate in the acquisition relative to the total contract value (TCV).

e. Detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation commitment and quantitative degree of participation. (Note: This information will not be incorporated into the resultant contract.) This narrative shall not exceed two (2) single-sided pages.

Attachment C, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Template, is provided; however, Offerors may submit the information in their own format as long as complete, required information is included.

(b) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (not applicable to Small Business Offerors):

Other than small business Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan satisfying the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Alt II. A template is provided as Attachment D. In addition to these requirements, the Subcontracting Plan shall address affirmatively all other small business subcontracting requirements in FAR Part

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00-REV 1

19.7. The Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Commitment Strategy required above, which applies to both small and other than small businesses.

Note 1: Though different from each other, the Small Business Participation Commitment Document is a complement in part to a Subcontracting Plan for Offerors required to submit a plan. Other than small business Offerors need to ensure consistency between both documents where appropriate.

Note 2: The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to other than small business. The Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with the offer and a final Subcontracting Plan, once determined to be acceptable, shall be incorporated into the resulting contract.

(c) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the Solicitation Submittal Requirements for Factor 5 and the following adjectival rating method:

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 RATING SCHEME

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

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

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

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

d. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

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

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

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government Estimate;

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

RFP N62742-22-R-1317

Document 00 22 00

ATTACHMENT A-REV 1

ATTACHMENT A-REV 1

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

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

CON #6

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

DESIGN #6

1. Name of Firm that Performed Project*: ____________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ Unique Entity Identifier: ___________________ Phone Number: _____________ 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: ___________________________________ Unique Entity Identifier: ___________________ Phone Number: _____________ 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. Construction 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):

ATTACHMENT A-REV 1

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:______________________________________________

Complete Block 8 for Design Projects.

8. Design Project:

A/E Design Fee: $________________ Total Construction Value: $_______________

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

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

Other (explain):

9. Provide a detailed description of the project and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, square footage, construction methods), including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications. If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.

Primary Function of Facility: ______________________________________

ATTACHMENT B

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code: ___________ Address: Entity Identifier (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. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

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.

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

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

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…