AMD 01 23R1308.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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Feb-2023

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 N6274223R1308

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Feb-2023

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.)

N62742-23-R-1308, FY20 MCON PROJECT P-459B, MCB CAMP BLAZ PARKING, US NAVSUPPACT MCB, GUAM

SEE NEXT PAGE

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Feb-2023

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:

N6274223R1308

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. Document 00 70 00, FAR clause 1.43 FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

1.43 FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2021-O0008)

2. 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. Paragraph 2.2 Non-Price Evaluation Factors, is revised to amend the relevant project description under Factor 2 – Experience. Revisions are shown in red font.

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

End of Amendment

FY20 MCON PROJECT P-459B, MCB CAMP BLAZ WON 1661460

PARKING, US NAVSUPPACT MCB, GUAM

N62742-23-R-1308

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 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.3 RATING SCHEME

2.4 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction Experience Data Sheet

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

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD-REV 1

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

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

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. 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 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. The awardee’s proposal will be incorporated into the contract and all items proposed will become binding requirements of the contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., teaming agreements, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award will be equal or better than as proposed and shall require Contracting Officer’s approval prior to implementation.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will select the best value Offeror using the tradeoff source selection process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror 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 Offeror or other than the highest non-price rated Offeror. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

The Government will consider Factors 1 through 4 and price in making the best value award decision. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation is that the technical factors (i.e., Factors 1, 2 and 3) are equal to each other and when combined are equal to the performance confidence assessment (past performance), Factor 4. The combined non-price Factors 1 through 4 are considered approximately equal to price.

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Safety Factor 4: Past Performance (Performance Confidence Assessment)

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 project based on the Part 3, Chapter 1.0 Project Description of the specifications. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm. If the Offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint-Venture, 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 two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page, 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 and the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and lead design firm to accomplish the requirements of the contract. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

For all construction and design projects submitted for Factor 2, the Offeror shall complete the attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) and complete all individual blocks. Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate relevant construction and design experience.

If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, the Offeror shall submit a separate Attachment A for construction and a separate Attachment A for design. 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 scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this solicitation.

(1) Construction Experience

Submit a maximum of three (3) relevant construction projects that best demonstrates the Offeror’s construction experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity as provided in the relevant construction project definition below. If the proposal submits more than three (3) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first three (3) projects submitted and will disregard any other project information after the first three (3). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is defined as:

Construction of an asphalt parking lot with approximately 100 stalls. Projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the past 15 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Substantially completed is defined as at least 90% physically complete at the time of RFP issuance.

The proposal shall clearly indicate the number of stalls constructed. For example, if a headquarters building also constructed an asphalt parking lot, indicate the number of stalls constructed on Attachment A.

NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE:

1. Alteration, renovation, or repair projects will not be considered relevant.

2. 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.

3. 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 firm has performed.

4. 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 Offferor), the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) shall 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, e.g., “Company X will perform the asphalt paving work for this contract” or the key personnel it will provide in the performance or management of the contract, e.g., “Company Z will provide the project manager and site superintendent for 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.” For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate 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.

5. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the requirements of 13 CFR 121.103(h) and 13 CFR 125.7(a) and (b) apply. If the joint venture does not have experience in relevant projects then each joint venture partner shall individually demonstrate experience in relevant projects. The requirement for the submission of a maximum of three (3) projects remain unchanged.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of three (3) relevant design projects that best demonstrates design experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity as provided in the relevant design project definition below. If the proposal submits more than three (3) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first three (3) projects submitted and will disregard any other project information after the first three (3). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant design project is defined as:

Design of an asphalt parking lot with approximately 100 stalls. The construction project for this design shall have been completed or substantially completed within the past 15 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Substantially completed is defined as the construction project being at least 90% physically complete at the time of RFP issuance.

The proposal shall clearly indicate number of stalls designed. For example, if a headquarters building was designed with a parking lot, indicate the total number of parking stalls designed on Attachment A.

NOTES FOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE:

1. A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build (DBB), complete, final design performed under a single task order or stand-alone A-E contract) OR a complete, final design performed under a design-build construction contract as the Designer of Record (DOR). Design-Build Request for Proposal (DB RFP) solicitation documents shall NOT be considered a relevant design project. 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.

2. 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 firm has performed.

3. Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement for the firm that designed the relevant portion of the project if the firm is not the Offeror. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the proposed design firm that is claiming the project experience, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specifically state that the proposed design firm will perform as a designer on this contract consistent with the firm’s role in the project submitted for evaluation, e.g., “Company AB will be the designer of the parking lot for this contract.” For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

FACTOR 3 – 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 three (3) previous complete calendar years (2021, 2020, 2019). If an Offeror does not have the OSHA DART and/or TRC rates, affirmatively state so, explain why, and submit an equivalent based upon the OSHA formula used to calculate DART/TRC. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any DART rates exceeding 2.99 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any TRC rates exceeding 4.49 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 rate is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000

TRC Rate = Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

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

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The Offeror shall describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the Offeror shall describe the 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). (For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., the mishap rates (DART, TRC) are required for each partner/member;

however, only one (1) safety narrative is required. DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

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 the explanations for DART and TRC rates in the moderate risk category or higher for the three complete calendar years (2021, 2020, 2019).

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

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

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99

Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0

(2) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors and the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting to 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 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE (Performance Confidence Assessment)

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 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 – Construction Experience. Is a completed CPARS or AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project submitted under Factor 2 – Design Experience. If a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation is not available, then submit a Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ – Attachment B) for each project submitted under Factor 2 – 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, 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. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, the requirements of 13 CFR 121.103(h) and 13 CFR 125.7(a) and (b) apply. If the joint venture does not have past performance in relevant projects then each joint venture partner shall individually demonstrate past performance in relevant projects. The requirement for the submission of past performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience remains unchanged.

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 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 in total.

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

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation

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

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

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

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 award.

2.4 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

a. 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

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

FP N62742-23-R-1308

Document 00 22 00 – REV 1

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

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

DSGN #1 DSGN #2 DSGN #3

1. Name of Firm that Performed Project*: ____________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ Phone Number: _____________ Entity Identifier (EIN#):__________________ 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):

Name: _____________________________________ Entity Identifier (EIN#): __________________ Address: ___________________________________ Point of Contact: _____________________________ Phone Number: __________________________

2. Work Performed as*: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed by the Offeror: ____% 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):

FP N62742-23-R-1308

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Total Construction Award Amount: $____________________ Final Construction Price: $______________________

Price associated with the parking lot portion of the work, if applicable: $_______________________

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: $_____________ Value of Parking Lot: $__________

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.

Asphalt Parking Lot, Number of Stalls___________

RFP N62742-23-R-1308

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 (EIN#): ________________ 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 U N

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

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

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

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

E VG S M U N

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