24R1326_Amd0001-Issued.pdf

21RXXXX

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 NO. N62742-24-R-1326, WON 1708755 and 1708756, FY25 FHCON H-308 & H-434 REPLACE ANDERSEN HOUSING PHASE IX & X, U.S.

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

Amendment No. 0001 is 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

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 N6274224R1326

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-May-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 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 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

6-Jun-2024

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:

X

RFP N62742-24-R-1326

Amendment No. 0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, is deleted and DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (Amendment No. 0001) is added and accompanies this Amendment.

-- End of Amendment –

FY25 FHCON H-308 & H-434 REPLACE ANDERSEN WON 1788784

HOUSING PHASE IX & X, U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT WON 1788781

ACTIVITY, ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

Document 00 22 00

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DICUSSSIONS

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 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS:

A Construction Experience Project Data Sheet B NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) C Historical Small Business Utilization D Small Business Participation Commitment Document

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In phase-one, the Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors (not-to-exceed five) 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 in response to the evaluation factors (including subcontractors with teaming agreements, project schedule, building design etc.) will be enforced 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 AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, this acquisition is based upon two-phase design-build selection procedures. 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 – 5 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for phase-two. In making the best value award decision after phase-two, the Government will consider Factors 2 – 5 and price. The relative importance of evaluation Factors 2 – 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 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) are approximately equal to price.

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.

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Past Performance

Phase-Two:

Factor 4: Safety Factor 5: Small Business Utilization and 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. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and the proposed lead design firm/Designer-of-Record. 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. Provide an organizational chart, clearly depicting the offeror (including each legal entity comprising the offeror), the lead design firm/Designer-of-Record, and the lines of authority of the various entities. The narrative and organizational chart shall be limited to 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.

(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:

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. 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 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 Offeror 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:

New construction of single-family or multi-family housing development, consisting of twenty-five

(25) or more one- and/or two-story units, approximately $5 million or more in dollar value, completed or substantially completed within fifteen (15) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

NOTES:

1. “Substantially complete” is defined as at least 90% physically completed construction.

2. Building alteration, repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as relevant projects. In addition, buildings more than two stories will not be considered as relevant projects.

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 firm 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 no longer a separate legal entity, 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) 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 identify the relevant individual feature(s) to be performed in this contract and 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 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 new single-family or multi-family housing development, consisting of twenty-five (25) or more one- and/or two-story units, approximately $5 million or more in dollar value, completed or substantially completed within fifteen (15) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

NOTES FOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE:

1. “Substantially complete” is defined as at least 90% physically completed construction.

2. Building alteration, repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as relevant projects. In addition, buildings more than two stories will not be considered as relevant projects.

3. 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 (DB) 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.

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 firm has performed.

5. 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 be the designer of record on this project.

(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 – 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. If CPARS, CCASS, and ACASS exist, they will be considered in the evaluation of past performance over PPQs. 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 or design contract administration. Completed PPQs shall be submitted with the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

Offerors and Designers may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors and Designers may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) 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 or Designer’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 or any 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 on relevant projects 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 firms who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal and any proposed subcontractors, 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 and the Designer’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s and the Designer’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

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

PHASE-TWO

FACTOR 4 – SAFETY:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate OSHA300 logs, OSHA Form 300A, 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 paragraph (1) 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 (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, and 2019). 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 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. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

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

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 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 UTILIZATION AND PARTICIPATION:

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to Small Business (SB) concerns, including Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and other small business concerns. Further, it is the policy of the Government that such concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance.

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns and the proposed small business participation commitment for this requirement. The offeror is required to demonstrate its previous commitment to SBs through its record of past utilization of SBs and the level of commitment to small business if awarded a contract under this solicitation.

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

1. All Offerors (both large, non-profits, AND small businesses) shall use Attachment C (Historical Small

Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Each construction project submitted under Factor 2, Experience, performed by the Offeror (See Factor 2, Note 5 for definition of “Offeror”) shall be included on Attachment C. Failure to include each construction project submitted under Factor 2, Experience, on Attachment C, or the failure to fully complete Attachment C for each project may result in a deficiency. Only complete Attachment C. Information provided in a different format and/or on a form created by the offeror will not be evaluated. Attachments or addendums to Attachment C will not be evaluated.

Offerors are permitted to expand portions of the form, as needed, to provide sufficient response. Instructions regarding how to complete Attachment C are included at the beginning of the attachment.

2. All Offerors (both large, non-profits, AND small businesses) shall use Attachment D (Small Business

Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) to submit the following required information for evaluation of this factor:

a. To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify by name the subcontractors that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB). Identify the type and complexity of product/service to be subcontracted, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, joint venture agreement, mentor protégé agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) with each subcontractor.

o If subcontractors are not identified by name, offerors shall provide a detailed explanation why not identified. If firm written commitments with SBs are not in place, offerors shall provide an explanation and rationale on the ability to achieve the proposed participation. (See Attachment D, paragraph 5) o If a LB offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance. SBs intending to 100% self-perform are not required to provide an explanation. (See Attachment D, paragraph 6)

b. To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 20%. Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation requirement of 20% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.

c. Only complete Attachment D. Information provided in a different format and/or on a form created by the offeror will not be evaluated. Attachments or addendums to Attachment D will not be evaluated.

d. Large business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation requirement through subcontracting to small businesses.

e. Small business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation requirement through their own performance/participation as a prime as well as through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting with other small business concerns.

Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition based on the following:

1. The extent to which the offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns (including all of the various socioeconomic categories of small business, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts. For construction projects submitted for Factor 2, Experience, that did not have established small business goals, consideration will be given to the utilization of the small business concerns and the degree of usage of small business relative to the total contract value. Historical Small Business Utilization will only be evaluated if performed by the offeror.

2. The extent to which the offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including

SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract within the SBPCD.

a. The minimum small business participation requirement, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall meet or exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why the minimum 20% small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.

o Offerors that demonstrate a commitment to providing maximum practical opportunity to small businesses may be rated higher.

o Proposing less than 20% total small business participation requirement may result in a deficiency.

o Offerors that do not demonstrate commitment to providing maximum practical opportunity to small businesses may result in a deficiency.

b. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the degree to which small business concerns (including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, joint venture agreements, mentor protégé agreements, written/signed letters of /commitment, etc. will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment.

o The offeror may be rated more favorably if firm commitments with subcontractors are provided and the offeror provides a detailed explanation for how the small business participation requirement will be achieved.

o The offeror may be rated lower, if they do not provide a detailed explanation for why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance. (Not applicable to SBs intending to 100% self-perform or LBs and non-profits who intend to subcontract.)

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.

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.

g. 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 Government’s objective is to obtain the maximum amount of buildings for the lowest total price (CLINs 0001 and 0002) within the funds available for each CLIN. Any offer in excess of funds available specified for any CLIN will NOT be considered for award.

b. For price evaluation purposes, one or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the average building price (e.g. total price for CLIN 0001 plus CLIN 0002 divided by total number of buildings proposed) 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

Document 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

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

DESIGN #1 DESIGN #2 DESIGN #3

1. Name of Firm that Performed Project*: ____________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________ Unique Entity ID: ________________________ 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: ______________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________ Unique Entity ID: ________________________ 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):

Document 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT A

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.

Document 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT B

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: Unique Entity ID: _____________________ 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)?

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.

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):

Document 00 22 00 – ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 4 (Rev 4/2023)

ATTACHMENT C

HISTORICAL SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

N62742-24-R-1326 This form is to be completed by ALL offerors (both large AND small businesses) in order to provide supporting information for the evaluation of Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization and Participation. Attachment C documents the offeror’s historical small business utilization and achievements for each project submitted under Factor 2 – Experience.

Round all percentages to the nearest tenth of a percent (i.e., include only 1 number after the decimal point).

Information provided in a different format and/or on a form created…