N6274224R1321_AMD02.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

RFP N62742-24-R-1321 PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, INDO-PACIFIC

Continued on Page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Sep-2024

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 N6274224R1321

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jun-2024

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 X is extended, 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

04-Sep-2024

CODE

NAVFAC PACIFIC

CONSTR CONTRACTS BRANCH (CODE ACQ33)

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

JBPHH HI 96860-3134

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

RFP No. N6274224R1321 Amendment No. 0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

DOCUMENT 00 21 16, INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

PARA 1.2 NUMBER OF COPIES/TIME OF RECEIPT

Subpara a. Line 2. Delete “11 September 2024” and insert “25 September 2024”.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Table of Contents Delete page 1 of 1 and replace with the attached page 1 of 1.

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Attachment A Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet Delete pages 1 through 2 and replace with attached pages 1 through 3.

PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR U.S.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS, INDO-PACIFIC

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

Table of Contents Amendment No. 0002

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

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 and Design Experience Project Data Sheet

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

Amendment No. 0002

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

Amendment No. 0002

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.

The term “technical factors” refers to any non-price factor other than past performance. Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in phase-one and Factor 5 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1 and 2, 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 3 through 5 and price. The relative importance of evaluation factors 3 through 5 is as follows: Technical factors (Factors 3 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 4). 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: Bonding Capacity Factor 3: Experience Factor 4: Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance)

Phase-Two:

Factor 5: Safety

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 responsibility 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 Offer 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.

Amendment No. 0002

Factor 2 – Bonding Capacity

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a letter(s) from a corporate surety(ies) listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” indicating the Offeror’s single project bonding capacity in the amount of $1,000,000,000 or more. If the single project bonding capacity is subject to an aggregate uncompleted backlog, indicate the Offeror’s current aggregate uncompleted backlog and current available bonding capacity.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation is the Offeror’s ability to be considered for bonding for a single project in the amount of $1,000,000,000. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 3 –Experience

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 complete all individual blocks. Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Information exceeding the four (4) single-sided pages [or two (2) double-sided pages] will not be evaluated. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

(1) Construction Experience

Submit a maximum of four (4) 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 four (4) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first four (4) projects submitted and disregard any other project information after the first four (4). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is defined as:

a. New construction or repair of an existing airfield (aircraft runway, taxiway, or apron) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement of at least 20,000 square meters with a minimum concrete thickness of 300 mm. Flexible pavement construction will not be considered.

b. New construction or repair of an existing wharf approximately $30 million or more in dollar value. A wharf is defined as any structure built along the shore, including bulkhead wharfs, pile-supported wharfs, or any type of pier, designed for the purposes of docking, loading, or unloading ships.

NOTES:

1. Relevant projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within 15 years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Substantially complete means at least 90% physically complete.

Amendment No. 0002

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage in the performance of the contract at the worksite. Note that generalized statements concerning commitment of resources are not sufficient to demonstrate that an entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the contract. Examples of “generalized statements” include a commitment of resources merely based on an entity’s “access” to resources and other generalized statements such as an entity will “provide support and expertise on the project.” The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that any entity (other than the Offeror and, if the offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of two (2) design 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 two (2) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first two (2) projects submitted and disregard any other project information after the first two (2). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant design project is defined as: New construction of an aircraft hangar or industrial building/structure, approximately $20 million or more in dollar value.

1. Construction of relevant design projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within 15 years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Substantially complete means at least 90% physically complete.

2. A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build, completed 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.

3. Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement between the Offeror and the

Amendment No. 0002 designer-of-record(s) DOR), if the DOR(s) is not the Offeror. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement 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 that 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.

More favorable consideration may be given to relevant CONSTRUCTION projects that:

- work performed in a remote location.

- provided workforce housing and subsistence provisions.

- coordinated construction activities near an operational airfield/airport or operational port/harbor.

- had a magnitude of approximately $100 million or more in dollar value.

More favorable consideration may be given to relevant DESIGN projects:

- where Offeror and proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together.

- were aircraft hangars, instead of industrial buildings/structures.

- included structures containing long spans and column-free areas, approximately 90 meters or more in width.

- included structures utilizing heavy structural steel roof truss framing (structure consisting of multiple structural steel members connected at nodes or joints), instead of pre-engineered building construction.

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.

“Remote location” is defined as: geographically isolated areas with little or no locally available resources and little or no capability of furnishing a steady supply of equipment or materials, where the Offeror must face the management and logistical challenge of having to ship at least 90% of the project materials and equipment via barge transportation. Examples included but are not limited to Diego Garcia, Wake Island, Tinian, Saipan, Papa New Guinea, and Federated States of Micronesia. For purposes of this evaluation, Guam and Hawaii are not considered to be remote locations.

Factor 4 –Past Performance

(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 3 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 3 for Design Experience. If a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation is not available, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 3 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, Amendment No. 0002 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 the 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.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 3 - 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.

1. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor. In addition, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the CPARS using all UEI/CAGE numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

3. See Notes for Factor 3.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 3 – Experience and past performance on other relevant construction projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government may consider information in the Offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, Federal databases and other references. The information provided by the Offeror may provide the major portion of the information used in the Government’s evaluation for past performance. The Government however, is not restricted to the information provided by the Offeror and may use other sources (such as those listed in the submittal requirements) to assess past performance information.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, and the context of the data 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.

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. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered “acceptable”.

Amendment No. 0002

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.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

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

Factor 5 – Safety

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate TRC, DART, OSHA 300 logs and OSHA Form 300A 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 it is 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 previous complete calendar years (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020 and 2019). If an Offeror does not have the OSHA DART or TRC rates, affirmatively state so, explain why and submit equivalent DART and TRC rates based upon the OSHA formula shown below. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

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

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

The OSHA TRC rate is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000 TRC Rate =Number of employee labor hours worked

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

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The Offeror will describe methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the Offeror shall 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

Amendment No. 0002 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. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

(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 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.

2.3 RATING SCHEME

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

a. Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

b. 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.

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

Amendment No. 0002

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

e. Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

f. 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. 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;

PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR U.S. MILITARY

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS, INDO-PACIFIC

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT A

Amendment No. 0002

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

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

DES #1 DES #2

1. Name of Entity that Performed Project*: _________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________________ Entity Identifier (DUNS #): __________________________ Point of Contact: _________________________________ Contact Phone Number: _____________________________

a. If the firm that performed the project has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror.

b. Name of Entity that Performed Work that 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 that performed work on the project, state the exact legal name of the JV member the Offeror claims experience for): __________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ Phone Number: ___________________________________ Entity Identifier (DUNS #): __________________________ Point of Contact: __________________________________ Contact Phone Number: _____________________________

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

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Title:

Location (City/ Province and Country):

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

If not complete, % physically complete:

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

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

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Blocks 7 and 8 for Construction Projects.

Amendment No. 0002

7. Construction Project:

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

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

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (explain):

8. Construction Project Details: (For each item checked, provide a detailed description of the work in Block 10).

Area of airfield Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement constructed or repaired (Mark N/A for projects that are not airfield related):

square meters with a minimum concrete thickness of mm Was PCC Pavement for an aircraft runway, taxiway or apron? Yes No N/A Was item self-performed by Offeror? Yes No. N/A

Did the project need to provide workforce housing and subsistence provisions? Yes No Did the project require coordination of construction activities near an operation airfield/ airport or operational port/harbor?

Yes No

Complete Block 9 for Design Projects.

9. Design Project:

Total Construction Value: $_______________________

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

Design-Build Designer of Record Full Plans & Specs Other (explain):

Design Project Details: (for each item checked below, provide a detailed description of the work in Block 10)

Does this project demonstrate that the Offeror has previous work experience with the proposed design firm?

Yes No Did the project include an aircraft hangar? Yes No Did the project include industrial buildings/structures? Yes No Did the project include structure containing long spans and column-free areas, approaching or exceedingapproximately 90 meters or more in width?

Yes No Did the project include structures utilizing heavy structural steel roof truss framing (structure consisting of multiple structural steel member connected at nodes or joints)?

Yes No

Amendment No. 0002

10. 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, any problems encountered and how it was resolved), including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications. If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.