Amendment 0007.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to modify the chart for the DART rate information, under Factor 2 Safety, Basis of Evaluation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Aug-2023

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N6426723R0026

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Jul-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

23-Aug-2023

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CORONA DIV.

1999 FOURTH STREET BLDG 510

NORCO CA 92860

N64267 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6426723R0026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL

1.1 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS 1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF

CONTRACT

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SEED PROJECT

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

4. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

5.1 SITE VISIT

5.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

5.3 PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIS)

5.4 CONTRACT OPPORTUNITIES (SAM.GOV)

5.5 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

6. ATTACHMENTS:

6.1 ATTACHMENT A - PPI LOG TEMPLATE

6.2 ATTACHMENT B - CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

6.3 ATTACHMENT C – SAFETY NARRATIVE

6.4 ATTACHMENT D - OFFEROR TEAM COMPOSITION

6.5 ATTACHMENT E – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

6.6 ATTACHMENT F- PRICE PROPOSAL FORM (SEED PROJECT)

6.7 ATTACHMENT G- SECNAV 5512

6.8 ATTACHMENT H- B204 Room 105 Conference Room Renovation SOW (SEED PROJECT)

6.9 ATTACHMENT I- EXHIBIT A - SUBMITTAL REGISTER (SEED PROJECT)

6.10 ATTACHMENT J - EXHIBIT B – ATTACHMENTS (SEED PROJECT)

6.11 ATTACHMENT K – TYPICAL WORK REQUIREMENTS

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT

NUMBER

DOCUMENT TITLE TOTAL

PAGES

A Submittal Register 3

B

Attachment 1 Project Location and Reference Plans 21

Attachment 2 Existing Record Plans 14

Attachment 3 Specifications 223

Attachment 5 Environmental Management System Procedures Manual

Attachment 6 Navy Safety & Occupational Health Manual

Attachment 7 DBA CA 20230025 23

Attachment 8 Finishes 14

Attachment 9 B204 ACM Report 1

1.GENERAL

1.1 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

1.1.1 THIS SOLICITATION IS BEING ISSUED AS AN 8(a) SET-ASIDE. THE NAICS CODE FOR

THIS PROCUREMENT IS 236220 AND THE SIZE STANDARD IS $45M.

1.2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2.1 This solicitation is formatted as a Request for Proposal (RFP) in accordance with the requirements designated by sections of the FAR 15.203. This method permits evaluation of proposals based on price competition, technical merit and other factors; permits impartial and comprehensive evaluation of Offerors' proposals; permits discussions if necessary; and ensures selection of the source(s) whose performance provides the best value to the Government. This acquisition will be solicited as a competitively negotiated procurement as an 8(a) set-aside.

1.2.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any or all Offerors; to award the contracts to other than the Offeror submitting the lowest total price; to award to other than the Offeror submitting the highest technically rated proposal; and to award to the Offeror submitting the proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government. OFFERORS ARE ADVISED THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS OR ANY CONTACT CONCERNING THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable price and technical terms. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of proposals or conduct discussions providing an opportunity for the Offeror to revise its proposal.

1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT

1.3. l This acquisition will result in the award of a Firm Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for facilities primarily at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division (NSWC, Corona) for use at NSWC, Corona’s locations (Norco, CA, Seal Beach, CA and Fallbrook, CA). The Government intends to award approximately five (5) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the best values after evaluation in accordance with the factors and their relative importance, unless more or less than five (5) is determined to be the best value to the government by the Source Selection Authority.

1.3.2 Projects to be performed under this MACC will require the ability to manage multiple task orders concurrently. This MACC will encompass minor Construction, renovation, and repairs at NSWC, Corona.

The selected contractor(s) will be responsible for all labor, supervision, engineering, design, materials, equipment, tools, parts, supplies, and transportation to perform all of the services described in the drawings and specifications provided for each individual project. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, materials, supplies, equipment, tools, and transportation to perform all work associated with various construction, renovation, or repair projects at assorted buildings and structures at NSWC, Corona.

1.3.3 The completion date for the IDIQ contracts is five (5) years from the date of contract award. The total five-year ordering period estimated construction cost for all contracts is not to exceed $$42,620,000 for the life of the contract. Projects for the MACC have an estimated construction cost between $100,000.00 and $6,500,000.00; however, smaller and larger dollar value projects may be considered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Government guarantees an award amount of $2000.00 to each successful Offeror.

1.3.4 After award of the initial contracts and "seed" project, the successful IDIQ contractors will compete for task orders based on best value, using the tradeoff process or lowest price technically acceptable (to include lowest price). Only the successful IDIQ MACC contractors will compete for task orders.

1.3.5 The intent of this contract is that all MACC Contractors participate in pre-proposal conferences and site-visits and submit proposals on each task order. Contract awardees will be expected to submit a proposal for all Task Order Requests for Proposal (RFP) received from the Government. However, in the event a MACC awardee is unable to submit a proposal on a particular RFP, the contractor is required to notify, in writing, the Contracting Officer who issued the RFP and the ACO for the basic contract within five (5) working days from receipt of the RFP. A MACC awardee can only elect to withdraw from submitting a proposal on three (3) task order RFPs each year of the contract.

1.3.6 Each task order will contain project specific evaluation factors that will vary depending on the unique requirements for each task order. Additionally, each task order will cite a specific completion date and associated liquidated damages.

1.3.7 Contractor Performance Information: Contractor's performance will be evaluated using the respective contractor performance evaluation report entry system located on the website http://www.cpars.gov/. Prior to commencement of work the contractor is required to provide the government with the name, phone number and email address of the "Contractor's Representative" that will be responsible for receipt and review of draft performance evaluations prepared by the government in the appropriate system. It is the contractor's responsibility to keep this contact information current.

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SEED PROJECT

2.1 The initial project ("seed project") that will be awarded as the first task order concurrently with the basic contract is building (“BLDG” or “B”) 204 Conference Room 105 Minor Renovation. B204 is listed on the National Historic Registry and is currently being used for multiple purposes such as office space, storage, laboratory workspace, and shipping and receiving. It is located in the Lake Norconian district outside of the controlled inner compound. The primary group using the facility is Range Systems (RS).

Room 105 is currently being used as a temporary conference room, but lacks the lighting, HVAC and finishes to serve this purpose efficiently. The rooms, which will be renovated in the building, will be vacant during this project’s construction phase.

* Solicitation Section 01 00 00 will include the General Requirements for the seed project.

Pursuant to FAR 52.232-18, Availability of Funds, the Government's obligation under this solicitation, or any task order or contract that might result from the solicitation is entirely subject to, and contingent upon, the availability of appropriated funds. Should the Government be unable to award the seed project, the Government guarantees an award in the amount of $2,000.00 to each successful Offeror upon award of the MACCs. This minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract. No legal liability on the part of the Government shall arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer and a task order or contract is awarded by the Contracting Officer. Any Offeror proposing on this solicitation does so at its own cost and with the full knowledge that a task order for the seed project, might not result from this solicitation.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the Offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value-the proposals most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR l5.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

4. As stated in the solicitation, all technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price. The importance of price will increase if the Offerors' non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal's superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions.

Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board's assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors:

Factor 1 - Corporate experience Factor 2- Safety Factor 3 - Management Approach Factor 4 - Past Performance

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical (factors 1, 2 and

3) are of equal importance to each other, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment (factor 4). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-cost/price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors' non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal's superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a)Price

(l) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Proposals shall be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer via email and must be received by the date and time specified in Block 13 of the SF1442.

Contract Specialist: Sabrina Mazumder Email: sabrina.m.mazumder.civ@us.navy.mil

Contracting Officer: Erin Graves Email: erin.d.graves.civ@us.navy.mil

Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals prior to the latest closing date. File size is limited to 5MB per email.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring their email size does not exceed the 5 MB limitation. File sizes larger than 5MB and .zip file extensions will be stripped by the Navy email system. Modifications, amendments, or withdrawal of proposals should also be made to the above email addresses. One email is acceptable as long as it does not exceed 5 MB. If it exceeds 5 MB, Offerors may separate their submission among multiple emails and should number them email 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, etc.

All information contained in the Offeror’s proposal shall adhere to the following:

Developed with Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat products only.

1 inch margins, excluding headers and footers.

10-point (minimum), Times New Roman font.

NOTE: HARD COPIES OF MAILED OR HAND DELIVERED PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

Also, price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, non-price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered. All submissions shall include the following:

(i) Executed SF 1442. Offeror shall insert its company name and address in Block # 14, telephone number in Block #15, acknowledge all amendments in Block #19 (if applicable), name and title of person authorized to sign in Block #20A, signature in Block #20B, and offer date in Block #20C of the SF1442. In addition, Offeror shall provide its Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), CAGE code, and Federal Tax ID number with its proposal.

(ii) Completed Proposed Price for the Seed Project.

(iii) Bid bond (SF-24). Offeror shall submit a bid bond (SF-24) in the amount of 20% of total project bid price for the seed project or $3M, whichever amount is less. The bid bond shall be in the name of the Offeror identified on the SF1442. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a letter from its bonding company confirming that it has a single award bonding capacity of at least $10,000,000 and the ability to bond multiple projects.

(iv) SAM registration. Offeror shall ensure current registration on the SAM Website, www.sam.gov, including Annual Representations and Certifications are complete and updated for this procurement. If a Representation or Certification required by Section 00600 of the RFP is not provided in SAM, include the representation or certification in your price proposal. Please note: A small business joint venture Offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:

(A) Small business;

(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or

(E) Historically underutilized business zone small business

(v) FAPIIS Certification. Offeror shall ensure Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) Certification as required by FAR 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters.

(vi) VETS-4212 registration. Offeror shall ensure a current VETS-4212 report has been submitted to the Department of Labor (DOL) website, http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets42 I 2.htm, if the Offeror is required to submit. An email confirmation of submission can be requested and received by the Offeror from the DOL website and submitted in the price proposal. If the Offeror is not required to submit a report to VETS-4212, include a brief statement and justification explaining why the Offeror is not required to submit a report.

Visit the VETS-4212 website for details concerning if your company is required to submit a VETS-4212 report and to request an email confirmation of submission.

(vii) Completed Construction/Project Schedule for Seed Project.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PRICE PROPOSAL PACKAGE:

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION INFORMATION - In order to be eligible for award, the Offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, specifically 9.104-1, General Standards. In a separate Tab, the Offeror shall provide the following information in the price proposal package:

1. One (I) Signed Bank Reference demonstrating adequate financial resources. If Offeror's firm has a line of credit - provide information on how many figures Offeror can borrow against the line of credit (i.e. medium 6 figures - exact line of credit is not required).

2. The Offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or signed by an authorized officer of the organization. Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract. For Joint Venture arrangements, submit the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each company in the Joint Venture and discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies.

The Government may also utilize Dun & Bradstreet reports to evaluate the financial capacity of the Offeror.

3. Description of Offeror's facilities and equipment.

4. Other Offeror's work presently under contract.

Although required to be submitted with Offeror's price proposal, this information will not be evaluated as part of the price proposal. This information forms the basis of your firm's responsibility determination should your firm be considered for award. Proposal packages from unsuccessful Offerors will not be returned to the Offeror, but shall be destroyed by the Contracting Officer. No certificate of destruction will be issued.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price for the seed project.

Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items, if applicable. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

Proposals shall be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer via email and must be received by the date and time specified in Block 13 of the SF1442.

Contract Specialist: Sabrina Mazumder Email: sabrina.m.mazumder.civ@us.navy.mil

Contracting Officer: Erin Graves Email: erin.d.graves.civ@us.navy.mil

Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals prior to the latest closing date. File size is limited to 5MB per email.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring their email size does not exceed the 5 MB limitation. File sizes larger than 5MB and .zip file extensions will be stripped by the Navy email system. Modifications, amendments, or withdrawal of proposals should also be made to the above email addresses. One email is acceptable as long as it does not exceed 5 MB. If it exceeds 5 MB, Offerors may separate their submission among multiple emails and should number them email 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, etc.

All information contained in the Offeror’s proposal shall adhere to the following:

Developed with Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat products only.

1 inch margins, excluding headers and footers.

10-point (minimum), Times New Roman font.

NOTE: HARD COPIES OF MAILED OR HAND DELIVERED PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

Also, price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered. Likewise, non-price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered.

All submissions shall including the following characteristics:

Text pages 8 ½ x 11 format Drawings 11 x 17 inches and folded down to 8-1/2 x 11 inches 10 point font, Times New Roman One complete electronic copy of the non-price/technical proposal factors as a single .pdf searchable file Include a cover page with Solicitation Number, Solicitation Title, Prime Contractor Name, Address, Phone

Number, Fax Number, UEI, Cage Code, Point of Contact, Title, phone number, and email address. *If proposing as a joint venture, please include the CAGE and UEI for each partner.

Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements).

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects to demonstrate your experience on projects that are similar in size, scope sand complexity to the projects proposed for this MACC. A specific project is a single project or a single task order under an indefinite quantity contract. Recent is defined as having been 100% completed within the five (5) years from the date of issuance of this soliciation. A project is 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 and will not be considered; rather, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project. Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether or not the project is new construction, renovation, or repair, provides the final construction cost, and addresses how the project meets the scope/complexity requirements.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as:

Size: Size: A final construction cost of $100,000 or greater. At least (1) one project must have a final construction cost of at least $4,000,000. The $4,000,000 project must be at least 50% complete at time of RFP issuance.

Scope/Complexity: A relevant project is further defined as demonstrating the capability to perform general construction or building renovations with a diverse range of construction tasks. A relevant project is further defined as:

(1) New construction of a facility; or

(2) Interior and Exterior Repair; or

(3) Renovation that includes multiple building system

Additionally, submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics:

1) Offerors shall have acted as the Prime Contractor on submitted projects;

2) Offerors shall demonstrate relevant experience with at least one of each of the elements listed under scope/complexity

3) Experience with design-build (at least one relevant project) and design-bid- build (at least one relevant project);

Note 1: In accordance with 13 CFR 125.2(g), small business Offerors may utilize the prime contractor experience of a small business first-tier subcontractor(s) to demonstrate experience under this evaluation factor if that small business Offeror cannot independently satisfy the experience requirement as defined above.Considering13 CFR 125.2(g), the Offeror or, for a small business Offeror, a small business first tier subcontractor, shall have been the prime contractor as defined above. In order to utilize the experience of a small business first-tier subcontractor(s), the Offeror must specifically identify the proposed small business first-tier contractor(s) in its proposal in accordance with this Factor. The Government notes that 13 CFR 125.2(g) is specific to only small business Offerors and named small business first-tier subcontractors. As such, the small business Offeror is not permitted to use the experience of a large business subcontractor or large business corporate affiliate in place of its own if the small business Offeror cannot independently satisfy the experience requirement as defined above.

Note 2: Projects submitted that only include horizontal or civil site work will not be considered relevant.

The Offeror's body of submitted work, considered as a whole, will be reviewed to determine if it possesses all of the scope and complexity characteristics listed above. Scope will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size and complexity. Complexity will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size and scope.

Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether or not the project is new construction, provides the final construction cost, and address how the project meets the scope/complexity.

Note: Relevancy will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size, scope and /complexity and completed within the specified time period.

The absence of any such information may result in the project being considered Not Relevant, which could result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor, if the minimum requirements are not met.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall have been completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. Projects which are not complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered "Not Relevant". Additionally, projects completed prior to five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered "Not Relevant."

A project is 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. The submission of a multiple award and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract as a whole will be considered Not Relevant.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design, or the Government reserves the right not to consider the project. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) information beyond this page limit will not be considered.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower.

Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Offerors may submit experience where a member of the JV performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how its work on that project met size, scope, and complexity, as defined above. Likewise, Offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a project where it performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how its work on that project met size, scope, and complexity, as defined above. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

For a JV, the Offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For an 8(a) Mentor-Protege Joint Venture, the Offeror shall submit the signed, and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) approved, Mentor-Protege agreement.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/L TD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF 1442), the proposal shall demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement by clearly describing the role that firm will have in the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will not be considered.

Design Experience:

While the seed project is not design-build, design-build projects may be contemplated under this MACC. Therefore, the Offeror is required to address the design firm to be proposed on future projects.

Offerors shall clearly state the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the Designer of Record (DOR) for future task orders under this MACC. Provide the full name of the firm, address, Unique Entity Identifier, and CAGE code. The designated firm will be required to be utilized as the DOR on future design-build task orders under the resulting MACC, unless a substitution is approved by the Contracting Officer for the proposed task order.

The Offeror must provide a supporting signed joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment demonstrating the agreement for the duration of this MACC with the Architect-Engineer firm that is proposed to be utilized as the DOR.

Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant projects as the designer of record that best demonstrate your experience in a diverse range of design tasks similar in size, scope and complexity to the projects proposed for this MACC.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant design project is defined as:

Size: Size: A final construction cost of $100,000 or greater. At least (1) one project must have a final construction cost of at least $4,000,000. The $4,000,000 project must be at least 50% complete at time of RFP issuance.

Scope/Complexity: A relevant project is further defined as demonstrating the capability to perform general construction or building renovations with a diverse range of construction tasks. A relevant project is further defined as:

(1) New construction of a facility; or

(2) Interior and Exterior Repair; or

(3) Renovation that includes multiple building systems; or

Experience: Additionally, submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics:

4) Firms shall have acted as the Designer of Record on submitted projects;

5) Firms shall demonstrate relevant experience with at least one of each of the elements listed under scope/complexity

6) Experience with design-build (at least one project);

Note 1: Projects submitted that only include horizontal or civil site work will not be considered relevant.

The Offeror' s body of submitted work, considered as a whole, will be reviewed to determine if it possesses all of the scope and complexity characteristics listed above. Scope will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size and complexity. Complexity will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size and scope.

Ensure that the project description clearly identifies whether or not the project is new construction, provides the final construction cost, and address how the project meets the scope/complexity.

Note: Relevancy will only be satisfied on projects that are considered relevant in terms of size/scope /complexity and completed within the specified time period.

The absence of any such information may result in the project being considered Not Relevant, which could result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor, if the minimum requirements are not met.

Projects submitted for the DOR shall have been completed within the previous five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. Projects which are not complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered "Not Relevant". Additionally, projects completed prior to five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered "Not Relevant." For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the previous five (5) years of the proposal due date of this RFP. The design completion date shall be clearly stated on the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B). The project will be considered ''Not Relevant" if the design completion date is not clearly provided.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. 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. The submission of a multiple award and/or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract as a whole will be considered Not Relevant.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment B) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. The same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design, or the Government reserves the right not to consider the project. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider submissions via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). Information beyond this page limit will not be considered.

The Offeror / DOR may utilize experience of a design subcontractor for the DOR to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror / DOR must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment (from and signed by the proposed design firm) and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. If the agreement/letter is not provided, or meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, experience of the proposed design subcontractor will not be considered.

(ii) 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 RFP. The Government will only review the first five projects submitted for Construction Experience and the first five projects submitted for Design Experience. Any projects submitted in excess of the five

(5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

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

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than relevant projects that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate complete troubleshooting and repairing existing utility systems from the utility entrance to the source of the problem may be considered more favorably.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with execution of projects simultaneously may be considered more favorably. In order for this experience to be "met", the Offeror must show at least two (2) projects with overlapping start and completion dates.

Relevant construction projects with complex scheduling issues including projects designed to be executed in phases may be considered more favorably.

Relevant projects with substantial hazardous material abatements may be considered more favorably.

Relevant projects involving laboratory design/construction may be considered more favorably.

Each project will be assigned an individual relevancy rating. The following chart will be used to evaluate relevancy:

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Offeror will be assigned one overall adjectival rating for Corporate Experience. The following adjectival ratings/descriptions will be used:

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

Offerors on this Contract must have an effective EMR less than or equal to 1.0, as computed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) or if not available, as computed by the state agency's rating bureau in the state where the Offeror is registered, when entering into a subcontract agreement with the Prime Contractor or a subcontractor at any tier. Contractor's Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) must collect and maintain the certified EMR ratings for all subcontractors on the project and make them available to the Government at the Government's request. Submit NCCI calculated EMR and Safety Narrative (Attachment C). Individual blocks on this form may be expanded.

For a partnership, or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit a separate EMR for each business entity who is part of the partnership/joint venture. Offerors who fail to submit EMR for each business entity who is part of the partnership/joint venture will be assigned a deficiency and will be rated Unacceptable.

If Offeror does not have an EMR available, for any year, Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to why the EMR is not available and provide OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) calendar years.

For a partnership, or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART and TCR for the specified five (5) years for each business entity who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one (1) safety narrative is required. Offerors who fail to submit DART rates and TCR for each business entity who is part of the partnership/joint venture will be assigned a deficiency and will be rated Unacceptable.

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (not an overall average). If the

Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. A detailed explanation is required for any calendar year for which an Offeror has a moderate or higher risk that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

200,000

2. TCR: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. An acceptable/detailed explanation is required for any calendar year (CY) for which an Offeror has a moderate or higher risk that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

200,000

Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors.

The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The Offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to eight (8) single-sided pages.

The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information.

These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the Experience Modification Rating (EMR), and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the EMR rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices considering any positive or negative rates and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

1. EMR Rate: The Board will evaluate rates over the last five (5) years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative rates occurring at Sub-Standard risk levels require the Offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Superior and/or Acceptable for four (4) or more years within a specific five (5) Calendar Years would indicate a significant strength.

c. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Sub-Standard to Acceptable or Superior would indicate a strength.

d. An increasing EMR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e., Acceptable or better to Sub-Standard) unless an acceptable explanation is provided for any trends that rise at or above Acceptable.

e. Sub-Standard for four (4) or more years within the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY) could be considered a significant weakness.

f. This chart correlates the EMR rate to the level of risk:

Risk EMR Rate Superior Less than 0.7 Acceptable From 0.7 to 1.0 Sub-Standard Greater than 1.0

2. DART Rate: The Board will evaluate rates over the last five (5) years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative rates occurring at or above moderate risk levels require the Offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Low Risk and/or Very Low Risk for four (4) or more years within the specified five (5) Calendar Years would indicate a significant strength.

c. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very

Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

d. An increasing DART rate trend, could be considered a weakness (i.e. Moderate Risk or better to High Risk or Extremely High Risk) unless an acceptable explanation is provided for any trends that rise at or above Moderate.

e. High Risk and/or Extremely High Risk for four (4) or more years within the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY) could be considered a significant weakness.

f. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 3.4 Extremely High Risk Greater than 3.4

3. TCR: The board will evaluate rates over the last five (5) years considering changes that take it from one (1) risk level (or more) to the next up or down.