_N6945014R1261_2_Pre_Proposal_Conf_SiteVisit_Mins_.pdf

N69450-14-R-1261 Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE MINUTES

0845-0930 -- Sign-in

0930 – 0940

Welcome/Introductions & Contractual Overview – Dianne Haymans

Welcome. NAVFAC SE IPT SA welcomes you to the Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Visit for Solicitation N6945014R1261. The project consists Repair Airfield Pavements ST15-08, Energy Airfield Lighting Reliability Efficiency Improvements RM10-7582, P-8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways P-631, and P-8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion P-659. Your interest in the project and time spent with us today is appreciated. Today’s conference is an overview of the solicitation and the information reviewed today is contained within the solicitation.

**Please hold questions to the end of the conference during Questions and Answers**

Attendance Roster. Please ensure you signed in on the Attendance Roster. If you did not sign-in please raise your hand. A record of the Pre-Proposal Meeting/Site Visit will be posted on the FBO website.

Introductions.

Nicole Wilhelm, Supervisory Contract Specialist, NAVFAC SE IPT SA Dianne Haymans, Procuring Contract Specialist, NAVFAC SE IPT SA Amy Hoffer, Project Manager, NAVFAC SE IPT SA Jeff Frank, P.E., NAVFAC SE Designer of Record Airfield Fred Walker, URS Group, Inc., Designer of Record Lighting Dennis Combs, URS Group, Inc.

John Tillman, NAS JAX Security Representative LCDR Aaron Ripple, PWD FEAD Director Jacksonville (JAX) LTJG Jamie Wallace, Construction Manager, PWD FEAD JAX Art Mosley, Supervisory Engineering Technician, PWD FEAD JAX Samantha Shelton, Interim Supervisory Contract Specialist, PWD FEAD JAX

Contractual Overview.

A contractual overview was provided using Slide #5. Attendees were reminded all information provided at the conference is in the solicitation.

Revised July 2011 Page 1 of 20

-Advertised solicitation: Posted 31Mar2014 on FedBizOpps at https://www.fbo.gov.

-Posted amendments: None to date -I want to stress that nothing said today or any responses given today will be binding or change the requirements of the solicitation unless the solicitation is amended in writing by issuance of an official amendment. Amendments will be posted to FedBizOpps. We will answer general questions during today’s conference. No questions will be answered at the project site.

This solicitation is a negotiated source selection procurement that consists of price and non-price proposals. The source selection method to be used is Best Value Tradeoff approach and One Phase Design-Bid-Build selection procedures.

RFP Section 00202, which begins on Page 9 of 112 of the solicitation, details the Price and Non-Price (Technical) Submission Requirements and the Evaluation Criteria that will be used by the government to evaluate your proposal. This will be reviewed in more detail later in the conference.

Offerors should understand that award may be made without discussions or without a chance to revise your proposal, so please ensure that you submit your best terms in this proposal submission. It is important that you submit everything that is required of the solicitation. If you do not submit everything, your proposal will receive a lesser rating and may not be considered for award. Also, submitting a large amount of additional information or catalogs may not improve your rating.

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 Project Magnitude for this solicitation is between $25,000,000 and $75,000,000.

Your Price Proposal, submission requirements which begin on page 11 of 112, will be evaluated for responsiveness (which ensures you have submitted all required documentation and information); then for responsibility (information obtained to ensure that your company is financially capable of performing the contract and that you have not been debarred or restricted from doing business with the government); and then it will be evaluated for reasonableness (compared to other offeror prices submitted and the government’s estimate).

Revised July 2011 Page 2 of 20 https://www.fbo.gov/

Award will be made to the offeror whose total evaluated price and non-price proposal provides the best value to the Government.

All correspondence and questions should be directed to Dianne Haymans by email to dianne.haymans@navy.mil. Please submit your questions as Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) in writing using the Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Log Template Form in EXCEL format, Attachment A, in accordance with the solicitation. The last day for submission of PPIs is 30 April 2014. You need to have all your questions in by the 30th in order to allow time to issue an Amendment and time for interested offerors to address them prior to the proposal due date. We plan to issue final responses via amendment to be posted on FBO 07 May 2014.

Proposals are due no later than 2:30PM EST on 15 May 2014 approximately five

(5) weeks from today. An extension of that date is not anticipated. The anticipated award date is late September 2014.

Once more, I want to stress that nothing said today or any responses given today will be binding or change the requirements of the solicitation or scope of work.

Only an official amendment will make changes to the solicitation or scope of work.

Amendments will be posted to FedBizOpps. We will answer general questions during today’s pre-proposal conference. No questions will be answered at the project site.

0940 – 0955 Project Scope Overview

Jeff Frank, NAVFAC SE Designer of Record (Airfield). An overview of the airfield portion of the project scope was provided using the Slide #6 aerial view of the project site.

Fred Walker, URS Group, Inc., Designer of Record (Lighting) Dennis Combs, URS Group, Inc.

An overview of the lighting portion of the project scope was provided using the Slide #6 aerial view of the project site.

0955 – 1030 Solicitation Procedures – Nicole Wilhelm Price Allocation – Amy Hoffer An overview of solicitation procedures was provided using Slide #7.

An overview of the paving pricing allocation plan was provided using Slide #8.

Revised July 2011 Page 3 of 20 mailto:dianne.haymans@navy.mil

An overview of the lighting pricing allocation plan was provided using Slide #9.

This Solicitation will result in a firm-fixed-price Design-Bid-Build construction contract with three (3) line items (CLINs). This is a single procurement. The CLIN structure is solely for the purposes of managing different funding sources.

The Government intends to award all CLINs prior to the start of Phase 2a.

The description of the basic and option CLINs are as follows:

CLIN 0001: Repair Airfield Pavements ST15-08 and Energy Airfield Lighting Reliability Efficiency Improvements RM10-7582 (Special Projects)

CLIN 0002: Option Item 1 - P-8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion P-659

(MILCON)

CLIN 0003: Option Item 2 - P-8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways P-631

(MILCON)

The Government may exercise CLINs 0002 and 0003 (Option Items 1 and 2) within 270 days from date of contract award.

Work Restrictions – Amy Hoffer

- Section 01 14 00.00 25 Work Restrictions specification section overview was provided using Slide #10.

Phasing – Jeff Frank, P.E.

CCD is estimated 570 days from contract award.

The completion dates are as follows:

An overview of Phase 1 was provided using Slide #11.

Phase 1 - As described on NAVFAC Drawing No. 15072736 PH100.

Completion Date: From date of contract award to, and including, 31 March 2015

An overview of Phase 2a and 2b was provided using Slide #12.

Phase 2a - As described on NAVFAC Drawing No. 15072737 PH101.

Completion Date: From 01 April 2015 to, and including, 15 September 2015 (167 calendar days)

Phase 2b - As described on NAVFAC Drawing No. 15072737 PH101.

Completion Date: From 01 April 2015 to, and including, 01 March 2016 (335 calendar days)

Revised July 2011 Page 4 of 20

An overview of Phase 3 was provided using Slide #13.

Phase 3 - As described on NAVFAC Drawing No. 15072738 PH102.

Completion Date: From 01 March 2016 through 01 May 2016 (61 calendar days)

Liquidated Damages – Nicole Wilhelm Liquidated damages information was provided as follows:

Liquidated Damages: If the contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the following amounts for each calendar day of delay:

During Phase 1 – No liquidated damages (accounted for in phases below) During Phase 2a - $ 4,828.00 During Phase 2b - $29,750.00 During Phase 3 - $ 2,450.00

PPIs and Evaluation Factors – Nicole Wilhelm An overview of the PPI process was provided using Slide #14.

PPI Process:

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) are to be submitted using the Solicitation Attachment A, Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Log Template in EXCEL format to Dianne Haymans by email to dianne.haymans@navy.mil. PPIs will be reviewed to determine if a change to the specifications and/or drawings is required. If an amendment is required it will be issued in FBO. The log will indicate yes or no if a RFP change is required and indicate the issued amendment number. The last day for submission of Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) is 30 April 2014. You need to have all your questions in by the 30th in order to allow time to issue an Amendment and time for interested offerors to address them prior to the proposal due date. The plan is to post the PPI Log responses weekly in FBO and issue final responses in FBO by amendment 07 May 2014.

An overview of the Evaluation Factors was provided using Slides #15 and 16.

RFP Section 00202, which begins on Page 9 of 112 of the solicitation, details the Price and Non-Price (Technical) Submission Requirements and the Evaluation Criteria that will be used by the government to evaluate your proposal.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Revised July 2011 Page 5 of 20

Provide one (1) original and one (1) copy of the solicitation submittal requirements identified below.

(i) Executed SF1442. Offeror shall insert its company name, address, DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Federal Tax ID number 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.

(ii) Bid bond (SF-24). Offeror shall submit a bid bond (SF24) in the amount of 20% of your total project bid price or $3,000,000 whichever amount is less.

(iii) 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.

(iv) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Offeror shall ensure FAPPIIS Certification as required by FAR 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (July 2013).

(v) VETS-100 registration. Offeror shall ensure a current VETS-100 report has been submitted to the Department of Labor website http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets-100.html, 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-100, include a brief statement stating that the offeror is not required to submit a report. Visit the VETS-100 website for details concerning if your company is required to submit a VETS-100 report and to request an email confirmation of submission.

Note: The bid bond, SAM, and VETS-100 registrations must be in the name/CAGE/DUNS of the offeror identified on the SF1442.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items.

The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evalution of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to

Revised July 2011 Page 6 of 20 http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets-100.html exercise the options. 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 IGE.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

In accordance with FAR 52.219-4, a price evaluation preference will be given to offerors certified by the U.S. Small Business Administration as a HUBZone Small Business Concerns.

The Non-Price Factors of this solicitation are:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Technical Solution Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization Factor 5 – Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects

1. The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 5). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The Offeror’s response to Factors that require the submission of Experience Narrative and Past Performance shall be based on the following relevancy definition:

Revised July 2011 Page 7 of 20

An overview of the definition of relevant project was provided using Slide #16.

RELEVANT PROJECT: Relevant projects include those that demonstrate construction capability on combined airfield paving and airfield lighting projects with a construction value of $30M or greater. The airfield paving portion of a project must utilize slip form paving and be valued at $10M or greater and the airfield lighting portion of the project must be valued at $5M or greater. Projects must have been completed by the offeror within approximately the last seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

The Construction Experience Data Sheets (Attachment C) that are requested in Factor 1 Experience must be relevant construction projects. The Past Performance information requested in Factor 5 Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects must be for the same construction projects that the Offeror submits for Experience in Factor 1.

(1) Factor 1, Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) Experience:

Submit Construction Experience Data Sheets for a minimum of (2) two to a maximum of (5) five construction projects that the offeror completed and served as the prime construction contractor that best demonstrates experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as: Relevant projects include those that demonstrate construction capability on combined airfield paving and airfield lighting projects with a construction value of $30M or greater. The airfield paving portion of a project must utilize slip form paving and be valued at $10M or greater and the airfield lighting portion of the project must be valued at $5M or greater. Projects must have been completed by the offeror within approximately the last seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

*Note: Maximum of five (5) projects may be submitted.

Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm and the primary subcontractors (airfield paving and airfield lighting) for this contract and

Revised July 2011 Page 8 of 20 the rationale for proposing this arrangement. The technical narrative shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page or two (2) single-sided pages.

Submitted construction projects must have been performed under a single task order or stand-alone contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project.

Offerors shall submit the work performed under a single task order or stand-alone contract as a project.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. 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.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods).

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 shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

RELEVANT PROJECT: Relevant projects include those that demonstrate construction capability on combined airfield paving and airfield lighting projects with a construction value of $30M or greater. The airfield paving portion of a project must utilize slip form paving and be valued at $10M or greater and the airfield lighting portion of the project must be valued at $5M or greater. Projects must have been completed by the offeror within approximately the last seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction 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

Revised July 2011 Page 9 of 20 successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) projects.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed primary subcontractor(s) (airfield paving and/or lighting) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably.

(2) Factor 2, Technical Solution:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

I. Technical Narrative

Provide a narrative describing the technical approach to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Narrative shall focus on the following:

- Approach to safely and successfully completing the project within the requirements in Specification Section 01 14 00.00 25 WORK RESTRICTIONS and on Phasing plan drawing sheets, PH100, PH101 and

PH102.

- Identify the major challenges to performing the work in accordance with the required work restrictions and construction phasing in the RFP.

Describe the preventative measures and/or specific steps the offeror will take to mitigate the impacts of these challenges.

- Approach to delivering paving materials to the project site while maintaining all the material quality requirements identified in the contract documents.

Narrative shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page or two (2) single-sided pages.

Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e. site plans and coordination drawings).

II. Schedule

Provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) time scaled logic diagram and schedule reports showing critical path activities using software applications such as SURTRACK or Primavera Project Planner. This schedule shall include key milestones and activities, including submittals, procurement, major construction items, Quality Control and Testing, work requirements as specified in Specification Section 01 14 00.00 25 WORK RESTRICTIONS along with project

Revised July 2011 Page 10 of 20 phasing requirements as specified on Phasing plan drawing sheets PH100, PH101 and PH102. The awardees proposed schedule will become the basis for the contractor’s initial schedule submission as outlined in Specification Section 01 32

17.00 25 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative and schedule considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the technical approach to determine the likelihood that the work will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. A technical approach which provides benefit to the government by one of the following prioritized items (listed in order of importance) while also maintaining all requirements of the RFP may be evaluated more favorably for this factor:

Reduced construction duration for Phase 2b Reduced construction duration for Phase 2a Reduced regular work day schedule to 16 hrs/day

(3) Factor 3, Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required.

EMR and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.):

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three

(3) previous complete calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three (3) year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three (3) previous complete calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted

Revised July 2011 Page 11 of 20

Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors.

Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page or two (2) single-sided pages.

(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 Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, any and innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Naval Engineering Training and Operating Procedure and Standard (NETOPS) 23, and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer

(DART) Rate

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends

Revised July 2011 Page 12 of 20 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(4) Factor 4, Small Business Utilization:

Definitions: “SB” as used herein, is intended to include Small Business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business concerns (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business concerns (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business concerns (HUBZone), Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns (SDVOSB). All small business programs are self-certifying programs with the exception of HUBZone certifications, see HUBZone SB Certifications below. Small Business Program requirements and definitions may be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 19.

HUBZone SB Certifications: Offerors are reminded that HUBZone SB concerns must obtain formal certification from the Small Business Administration (SBA) if they expect to receive the evaluation benefits associated with the HUBZone SB programs either as a prime or subcontractor(s). For more information on the HUBZone SB certification requirements and available benefits, contact your local SBA representative. Certified HUBZone SB firms are listed on the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) website at

Revised July 2011 Page 13 of 20 http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to periodically check the DSBS as certifications are subject to change.

A. – PAST PERFORMANCE IN UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERNS

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Proposals that do not include responses addressing ALL elements of the requirements stated below (a.

through g.) must include an explanation why that element is not addressed.

a. Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s contracts referenced under Factor 5, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects. Recently completed project evaluations are desired, however, in the absence of recently completed project evaluations, interim ratings for projects that are 80% complete may be considered. If more than five (5) evaluation ratings are provided, only the first five (5) will be considered. In addition, the Government may consider past performance information on other projects as made available to the Government from other sources (such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support Systems (CCASS)), Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS)).

b. Provide information on national and industry-issued awards that offerors received for outstanding support to SB concerns within the past five (5) years. Include purpose, issuer, and date of award(s). National and industry-issued awards received beyond five (5) years will not be considered.

c. Provide information on previous, existing, planned or pending mentor-protégé agreements (MPA) under any Federal Government or other program held within the last five (5) years. Information should include, at a minimum, the members, objectives, period of performance, and major accomplishments during the MPA.

d. Provide information on past use of Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) organizations certified under the AbilityOne Program by NISH or the National Industry for the Blind (NIB). Information should include

Revised July 2011 Page 14 of 20 http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm the contract type, type of work performed, period of performance, and number of employed severely handicapped persons.

e. Provide small business subcontracting history. Large businesses with Federal contracting experience shall provide final or current Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on prime (only) contracts submitted under Factor 5, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects. If Factor 5, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects submitted contracts are not prime contracts, submit SF294s or ISRs for contracts of similar scope performed as a prime contractor. If goals were not met on any submitted contracts, an explanation for each unmet goals is required. Large Businesses with no documented SF294/ISR history shall submit a subcontracting history on Attachment (D) Small Business Past Performance. If more than five (5) reports are provided, only the first five (5) will be considered.

f. Small Business proposers shall provide a subcontracting history on Attachment D, Small Business Past Performance.

g. If an Offeror is utilizing past performance information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the solicitation), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful participation of all members in the management of the subcontracting program/plan by identifying the personnel or resources from the member companies that will be dedicated to managing the plan, and an organization chart which demonstrates the reporting chain within the membership.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership LLC or other entity consisting of more than one entity, provide past performance information, elements a.

through f., for each individual business entity(ies) that will be responsible for managing the subcontracting program/plan.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the proposer’s level of past performance in utilizing Small Business (SB) concerns, AbilityOne, Mentor-Protégé Agreements, and other socio-economic programs, as defined in FAR Subparts 26.1 and 26.2, in subcontracting, and in meeting established Small Business subcontracting goals.

B. – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Revised July 2011 Page 15 of 20

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total acquisition, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor. If submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, identify the percentage of work each member will be responsible for and indicate the size status of each member, e.g., LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, etc.

If you are a Large Business, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for this project in the format provided in Attachment E for this factor, to include all information required in the attachment. If you are a Small Business, submit a subcontracting participation breakdown in the format provided in Attachment F for this factor. All proposers: To demonstrate commitment in using small business concerns, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan or subcontracting participation breakdown may list all subcontractors by name. If the proposed Small Business Subcontracting goals do not meet the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, include a detailed explanation describing the actions taken to arrive at that determination, along with an explanation for the goals that actually were proposed. For proposals submitted on design-build solicitations, the proposer must identify its designer/design team in its Subcontracting Plan or Small Business Participation Breakdown.

Firm commitments to subcontract to multiple companies: The Offeror may provide a demonstration of commitments in planned subcontracts by listing multiple names of companies that will be used to support specific small business category (i.e., SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB and SDVOSB).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The following will be evaluated on all proposals:

a. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates maximum practicable participation of SBs in terms of the total value of the acquisition, including options.

b. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a commitment to use SB concerns that are specifically identified in the proposal, including but not limited to use of mentor protégé programs.

c. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates SB participation in a variety of industries expected during the performance of work.

d. The realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals.

Revised July 2011 Page 16 of 20

The following will be evaluated on proposals submitted by Large Business firms:

a. The extent to which the proposal provides Small Business Subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum NAVFAC Small Business Subcontracting Targets, and utilization of AbilityOne CRP organizations. Proposals that provide goals exceeding the NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets may be rated higher. The proposed goals and NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracted values. The minimum NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets are as follows:

FY 2014

SB 66.67%

SDB 17.10%

WOSB 15.15%

HUBZone 8.85%

VOSB 3.00%

SDVOSB 3.00%

b. The extent to which the proposer’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan establishes reasonable efforts demonstrating the subcontracting targets can be met during the performance of the contract:

A copy of the blank forms to be used for offeror submission of Small Business Utilization are included as follows:

Attachment D – Small Business Past Performance Attachment E – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Attachment F – Small Business Offeror Small Business Participation Breakdown

(5) Factor 5, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

RELEVANT PROJECT: Relevant projects include those that demonstrate construction capability on combined airfield paving and airfield lighting projects with a construction value of $30M or greater. The airfield paving portion of a project must utilize slip form paving and be valued at $10M or greater and the

Revised July 2011 Page 17 of 20 airfield lighting portion of the project must be valued at $5M or greater. Projects must have been completed by the offeror within approximately the last seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

IF A COMPLETED CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

REPORT SYSTEM (CPARS) EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE

SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED

CPARS EVALUATION, the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) (PPQ) (Attachment G) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT

SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment G), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Dianne L. Haymans, via email, at dianne.haymans@navy.mil, prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 10 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Revised July 2011 Page 18 of 20

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

A copy of the blank NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment G.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand; and

- A respect for stewardship of Government funds

NAS JAX Security An overview of NAS JAX Base Security was provided utilizing Slide #17.

Base Access -Yorktown Gates Pass and ID is open 0700 to 1600

- For those individuals requesting badging background checks will be performed and go back 10 years or more and many offenses will result in badge denial -Parking and other areas are strictly enforced

NCACS: (RAPIDGATE) Process (Specification Section 01 14 00.00 25, paragraph 1.3.1.2).

-Mandatory for use by subcontractors and suppliers/vendors at all levels -It is possible to obtain a temporary pass for up to 28 days

Revised July 2011 Page 19 of 20

-After contract award this process will be covered in detail by the PWD FEAD office

Material Deliveries

1030 – 1045 Questions and Answers

-Question asked concerning phasing of the project with access to vaults, the main duct bank system, crossing of runway, accessing of the airfield for an active airfield. In addition to the Blue Ramp Stamp Pass, a Red Stamp will be issued to prime contractor upon successful completion of runway training. The Red Stamp allows for radio contact between the contractor and the tower for accessing of the airfield. With the Red Stamp there should be no restrictions as to access for the contractor of the runway.

1100 – 1200 Transportation to the Site and Site Walk Through Map of project site visit areas provided with the agenda.

Nine (9) site areas were visited during the site visit.

NOTE: The NAS JACKSONVILLE Airfield and Lighting Repairs Pre-Proposal Conference / Site Visit Slides are included in the NAS JACKSONVILLE Airfield and Lighting Repairs Pre-Proposal Conference / Site Visit Minutes.

Revised July 2011 Page 20 of 20

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

Solicitation N69450-14-R-1261 NAS Jacksonville Airfield and Lighting Repairs

Pre Proposal Conference And Site Visit 09 April 2014 0900

4/09/2014

AGENDA

Sign-in 0845 - 0900 Welcome/Introductions & 0900 - 0910 Contractual Overview Project Scope Overview 0910 - 0930 Solicitation Procedures 0930 - 1030 Price Allocation/Work Restrictions Phasing PPIs & Evaluation Factors NAS JAX Security Questions & Answers 1030 - 1045 Transportation to the Site and 1100 - 1200 Site Walk Through

Welcome/Introductions and Contractual Overview

• Welcome

• Project

– Repair Airfield Pavements ST15-08

– Energy Airfield Lighting Reliability Efficiency Improvements

RM10-7582

– P-8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways P-631

– P-8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion P-659

• Questions

• Attendance Roster

Welcome/Introductions and Contractual Overview (cont.)

•Nicole Wilhelm, Supervisory Contract Specialist, NAVFAC SE

IPT SA

•Dianne Haymans, Procuring Contract Specialist, NAVFAC SE

IPT SA

•Amy Hoffer, Project Manager, NAVFAC SE IPT SA •Jeff Frank, P.E., NAVFAC SE Designer of Record Airfield •Fred Walker, URS Group, Inc., Designer of Record Lighting •Dennis Combs, URS Group, Inc.

•John Tillman, NAS JAX Security Representative •LCDR Aaron Ripple, PWD FEAD Director Jacksonville (JAX) •LTJG Jamie Wallace, Construction Manager, PWD FEAD JAX •Art Mosley, Supervisory Engineering Technician, PWD FEAD

JAX

•Samantha Shelton, Interim Supervisory Contract Specialist, PWD FEAD JAX

Welcome/Introductions and Contractual Overview (cont.)

Solicitation issued 31 March 2014 Amendments

Negotiated source selection Best Value Tradeoff Approach One Phase Design-Bid-Build Full and Open Competition Firm-Fixed-Price Contract Section 00202 Price & Non-Price submission rqmts Factors combined Magnitude between $25M and $75M Price – responsiveness, responsibility, reasonableness PPI’s submitted at least 15 days prior to closing date Proposals due 2:30PM EST 15 May 2014

Project Scope Overview Project Plan

12/11/2013

Solicitation Procedures

CLIN structure – funding sources

Intends to award all CLINs prior to start of Phase 2a

CLIN 0001: Repair Airfield Pavements ST15-08 and Energy Airfield Lighting Reliability Efficiency Improvements, NAS Jacksonville, FL

CLIN 0002: Option Item 1 – P-8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion P-659

CLIN 0003: Option Item 2 – P-8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways P-631

Exercise option item within 270 days

NAS Jacksonville P-8A Airfield and Lighting Repairs Paving Pricing Allocation

Lighting Pricing Allocation

Work Restrictions, Specification Section 01 14 00.00 25

•1.2 Special Scheduling Requirements

– No Interruptions to air operations from contract award until 1 April

– 1 April 2015 the entire primary runway 10/28 will be closed and available for construction activities. The 28 concrete end of the runway shall be complete by 15 September 2015.

– After 15 September 2015 runway 14/32 will be open for continuous daytime air operations.

• 1.3.1.4 Flight-line Training and Access Requirements

– “Blue Ramp Stamp Training” and additional background screening, required for Phase 1 and Phase 3 of the project.

•1.3.2 Working Hours

– 24 hours per day, 7 days a week

•1.3.4 Exclusionary Period

– No work during 20 October 2014 – 27 October 2014

1/24/2013

Construction Phase 1

Construction Phase 2a and 2b

Construction Phase 3

Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs)

•To be submitted using the Solicitation Attachment A, Pre- Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Log Template in EXCEL format by email to dianne.haymans@navy.mil

•Reviewed to determine if a change to the specifications and/or drawings is required. If an amendment is required it will be issued in FBO

•Log will indicate yes or no if a RFP change is required and indicate the issued amendment number

•Last day for submission of Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) 30 April 2014 in order to allow time to issue an Amendment and time for interested offerors to address them prior to the proposal due date

•Post responses weekly in FBO

• Issue final responses in FBO by amendment 07 May 2014.

Evaluation Factors

Price Non-Price Factors

• Factor 1 – Experience

• Factor 2 – Technical Solution

• Factor 3 – Safety

• Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization

• Factor 5 – Past Performance

• Keep proposals separate

• Submit Factor 4 with Price Proposal

Evaluation Factors (cont.) Non-Price Factors

Non-Price Relevant Project defined as:

• combined airfield paving and airfield lighting projects with construction value of $30M or greater

• airfield paving portion of a project must utilize slip form paving; valued at $10M or greater

• airfield lighting portion; valued at $5M or greater

• completed by offeror within seven (7) years of the date of issuance of RFP

• Factor 5 Past Performance projects must be same projects submitted in Factor 1 Experience

NAS JAX Base Security

•Base Access

– Base Gates and Times

• Yorktown Gate – Use only when the Contractor Gate is closed

• Contractor Gate – Monday-Friday, 6:00am – 2:00pm, Closed Government

Holidays

– RAPID GATE Process (Specification Section 01 14 00.00 25, paragraph 1.3.1.2)

– Material Deliveries

QUESTIONS

Site Visit and Site Walk Through

• Transported to and from the site by Government furnished buses

• Map of the project site visit areas is provided with the agenda

• Please stay together at the various project site areas