24R1327 DBMACC-AM-0002-SF30.pdf

Offers 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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

N62742

DESIGN-BUILD MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (DBMACC), PRIMARILY FOR U.S. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF NAVFAC PACIFIC

Amendment No. 0002 is continued on page 2

HAND DELIVER

NAVFAC PACIFIC

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS BR (ACQ33)

4256 RADFORD DR, BLDG 62

HONOLULU, HI 96818-3296

See Item 6

N6274224R1327

1 2

07/09/2024

05/22/2024

RFP No. N6274224R1327

Amendment No. 0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Replace DOCUMENT 00 22 00, and replace with the attached revised DOCUMENT 00 22 00 (Amendment No.

0002)

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, ATTACHMENT A, CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT

DATA SHEET

Replace DOCUMENT 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet, and replace with the attached revised DOCUMENT 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet

(Amendment No. 0002)

DESIGN-BUILD MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (DBMACC), PRIMARILY FOR U.S.

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

NAVFAC PACIFIC

RFP N62742-24-R-1327

Document 00 22 00

Amendment No. 0002

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.3 RATING SCHEME

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS

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

DOCUMENT 00 22 0200

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

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

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

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

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

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

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

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

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

1.4 PREFERENCE FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS

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

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

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

Phase-one proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the phase-one evaluation factors and the most highly qualified phase-one Offerors (minimum of three (3)) will be requested to submit phase-two proposals. At the

Amendment No. 0002 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 1-3 will be evaluated in phase-one and Factors 4 and 5 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable.

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

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

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

Phase-Two:

Factor 4: Safety Factor 5: Small Business Participation

PHASE-ONE

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements at Document 00100 00 21 16, paragraph 1.1, including the proposed team’s ability to successfully complete three task orders concurrently. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm(s). If the Offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint-Venture, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, etc.), the narrative shall describe the roles and responsibilities of each legal entity(s) comprising the Offeror. The narrative shall be limited to three (3) double-sided pages or six (6) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

Factor 2 – Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

(1) Construction Experience

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 0002

5. A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

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

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

(2) Design Experience

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

3. A project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant design project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function as indicated

Amendment No. 0002 by the Offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type. As an example of primary function, a headquarters building which also includes a child care center shall be identified by its primary function as a “headquarters building” under the multi-story administrative facilities type of relevant construction project and shall not be considered as an educational facility. Indicate the Primary Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9. Or, if the Offeror elects to submit a project with multiple functions for a major function (that is not the primary function), the construction cost specific to the major function shall be clearly stated and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy. As an example of major function, if submitting relevant project information on a large maintenance building approximately $10M or more which is a part of a headquarters building project, the major function of that project may be submitted as an “industrial facility.” Indicate the Major Function as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9.

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

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

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

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

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

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

Proposals that utilize a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant construction project experience may be lesser considered.

Factor 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment (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

Amendment No. 0002

Design Experience. The same CPARS/CCASS evaluation may be submitted for the DOR if the CPARS/CCASS specifically evaluated the DOR’s performance for quality, schedule, management, small business subcontracting and regulatory compliance. If not, a PPQ solely evaluating the DOR’s performance shall be provided. PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. The Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offeror’s may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

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

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

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

Performance awards or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources. The same definition of “relevant project” as used for Factor 2 – Experience, will be used for Factor 3 – Past Performance. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

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

A construction 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 construction subcontractor’s past performance information may be lesser considered.

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

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

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

Factor 4 – Safety

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate TRC and DART Rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member; however, only one safety narrative is required. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has TRC and/or DART rates, then TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member).

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log and OSHA Form 300A summary for the five (5) previous complete calendar years (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. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

DART Rate:

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

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

TRC Rate:

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

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

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

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. Describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe their methodology to execute an effective program that utilizes sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

There is no page limitation to address paragraph (1) above. The narrative to address paragraph (2) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger).

Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

Amendment No. 0002

(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 Participation

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) All Offerors (large, non-profits, AND small businesses) shall use Attachment C (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Each project submitted under Factor 1 2, Experience, shall be included on Attachment C. Failure to include each project submitted under Factor 1 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 (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:

· 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 small business category, including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSBs. 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.

Amendment No. 0002 o If subcontractors are not identified by name, offerors shall provide a detailed explanation why subcontractors are 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)

· 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.

· 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.

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

· 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.

(b) 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 SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts. For projects submitted for Factor Z, 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.

· 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.

Amendment No. 0002 o Offerors that do not demonstrate commitment to providing maximum practical opportunity to small businesses may result in a deficiency be considered more favorably.

· 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 receive a deficiency if firm commitments with subcontractors are not provided and the offeror fails to provide a detailed explanation for how the proposed small business participation requirement will be achieved.

o The offeror may be rated lower, if they fail to 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 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-cost/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 evaluated price to ensure that it is fair and reasonable:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

Amendment No. 0002

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government Estimate;

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

ATTACHMENT A

Amendment No. 0002

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one):

CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5 CON #6

DES #1 DES #2 DES #3 DES #4 DES #5 DES #6

Experience, total of 4 single-sided pages or less? Yes No

1. Name of Firm that Performed Project*: ____________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ Unique Entity Identifier:____________________ 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 JV and Offeror is claiming experience of one of the JV members, state the exact legal name of the JV member Offeror claims experience for):

Address:

Phone Number: ___________________ Unique Entity Identifier:____________________ 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):

Completed within 10 years of the issuance date of the RFP? Yes No

Substantially complete? (90% physically complete) Yes No

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

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

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

ATTACHMENT A

Amendment No. 0002

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 or DOR:______________________________________________

Construction Project Details: (For each item checked, provide a detailed description of the work in Block 9).

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

Yes No

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

c. New construction of community support facilities, specifically schools, child care centers, training buildings, theaters, retail or recreation centers, approximately $30M or more. Yes No

Major function (as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9):

Was work self-performed by the Offeror? Yes No

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):

8. ConstructionDesign Project Details: (For each item checked, provide a detailed description of the work in Block 9).

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

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

c. New construction of community support facilities, specifically schools, child care centers, training buildings, theaters, retail or recreation centers, approximately $30M or more. Yes No

d. (Does not apply to Design Experience.) New construction of cast-in-place and/or precast reinforced concrete structures/building where the structures/buildings, or portions of the structures/buildings, contained hardened construction to mitigate blast effects to provide protection for personnel or valuable equipment, or new construction of concrete Earth Covered Magazines (ECM).

ATTACHMENT A

Amendment No. 0002

The proposal shall clearly indicate the construction dollar value of the work associated with the construction of the hardened concrete structure/building; the portion of the structure/building that contained hardened construction; or the concrete ECM. The dollar value of these features shall be approximately $5M or more. Yes No

e. (Does not apply to Design Experience.) New reinforced cast-in-place concrete or reinforced precast concrete buildings supported on driven precast pre-stressed concrete pile foundations, approximately $10M or more. Yes No

Major function (as part of the Project Description on Attachment A, Block 9):

Was work self-performed by the Offeror? Yes No

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.