_AMENDMENT_0003.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

Amendment 0003 to Solicitation N69450-19-R-0501, Solid Waste Facility, NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Please see page 2 for continuation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Jan-2019

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 N6945019R0501

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Dec-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Jan-2019

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

GULFCST

BLDG 903, PO BOX 30

NAS JACKSONVILLE

JACKSONVILLE FL 32212-0030

N69450 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6945019R0501

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

AMENDMENT 0003

14A. The purpose of Amendment 0003 is to make changes to Phase One Non-Cost/Price factors, Evaluation Factor 2 – Experience, and extend the Phase One proposal due date.

14B. This Amendment makes changes to Phase One Non-Cost/Price factors, Evaluation Factor 2 – Experience.

The changes are shown in “red” throughout the Evaluation Factor 2 – Experience, section.

14C. The Phase One proposal due date is changed FROM 3:00 PM ET on January 24, 2019 TO 3:00 PM ET on January 31, 2019.

14D. The AMAG form shall be submitted no later than 3:00 PM ET on January 25, 2019 to john.goggin@navy.mil and barbara.czinder@navy.mil.

14E. As an added convenience, the Government will be at the NAS Jacksonville Pass & ID/Base Security Office, BLDG #9, on January 31, 2019 between 2:45 PM and 3:00 PM ET, to accept Phase One proposals. For proposal drop-off assistance from the gate, please call 904-542-6685 or 904-542-6668.

14F. ALL other terms and conditions of this RFP remain unchanged.

14G. Offerors shall acknowledge this amendment in writing.

End Amendment 0003.

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 24-Jan-2019 03:00 PM to 31-Jan-2019 03:00 PM.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD & EVAL FACTORS

A. 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 contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(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. 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.

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.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Phase-One Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

Phase-Two Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors

All ratings for Phase One will be carried over into Phase-Two, unless new or revised information is provided.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy & Sustainable Design

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-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 2, 3, 5 and 6) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor (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 (Phase One):

Provide one (1) original, one (1) copy, and one (1) electronic copy (CD) of the solicitation submittal requirements for Phase One pricing identified below.

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

i. Cover letter with the following information:

Authorized negotiator’s (POC) name POC telephone number POC email address CAGE code DUNS number TIN (taxpayer ID number)

ii. SF1442 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) with blocks 14 through 20c completed

iii. Letter from Surety for a single project and aggregate bonding capacity showing bonding capacity

iv. Proof of the Offeror’s filled out Representations and Certifications and Active and Inactive Exclusions from the System for Award Management

(SAM)

v. Copy of annual Vet’s 4212 Report or confirmation notification email from VETS – 4212 (demonstrating proof of registration)

Note: The SAM, FAPIIS and VETS-4212 registrations must be in the name, CAGE, and DUNS of the offeror identified on the SF1442.

(b) Price Phase Two:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide one (1) original, one (1) copy and one electronic copy (CD format) of the solicitation submittal requirements identified below:

(i) Firm Fixed Price. The Offeror shall also submit a firm fixed price for the complete and total contract requirement (CLIN 0001).

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

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price for CLIN 0001. Total price consists of the basic requirement. 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.

(c) Non-cost/price Factors:

Phase I Non-Cost/Price Factors:

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

Factor 4 – Safety

Phase II Non-Cost/Price Factors:

All ratings from Phase I will be carried over into Phase II, unless new or revised information is provided.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution Factor 6 – Energy and Sustainable Design

Phase One Non-Cost/Price Factors:

Provide one (1) original, six (6) copies, and one (1) electronic copy (CD) of the solicitation submittal requirements for Factors 1-4 identified below. Entire proposal shall not exceed 50 pages in length (front side only) utilizing a minimum Arial Font of 12 or comparable size font for Factors 1-6 unless otherwise specified in the factor.

The 50 page limitation does not include Joint Venture Agreements, CPARS evaluations, past performance questionnaires or the schedule for Factor 3.

(1) Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (D-B) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6).

The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

(2) Factor 2 – Experience:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your 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 construction of a solid waste handling facility and/or sanitary wastewater treatment facility with a minimum dollar value of approximately $15 million as noted below, including but not limited to the following components:

1. Construction of landfills and ancillary structures incorporating geosynthetic components, earthen components, sumps, leachate ponds and stormwater controls. Minimum dollar value of $5 million.

2. Construction of recycling and materials management facilities including, sorting systems, recycling balers, stationary waste processing shredder, and scrap metal balers. Minimum dollar value of $1 million.

3. Construction of sanitary wastewater treatment structure, including lined ponds, pump stations, receiving stations and aerators. Minimum dollar value of $1 million.

The Offeror shall demonstrate a minimum of two projects for landfills and two projects for recycling facilities as noted in items 1 and 2 above. Experience must demonstrate a minimum of one project that contains sanitary wastewater treatment as noted in item 3. The ability to work in remote locations may be evaluated more favorably.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

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 attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) 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.

Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. 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). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

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.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a minimum of (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your 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 design of a solid waste handling facility and/or sanitary wastewater treatment facility with a minimum dollar value of approximately $15 million as noted below, including but not limited to the following components:

1. Construction of landfills and ancillary structures incorporating geosynthetic components, earthen components, sumps, leachate ponds and stormwater controls. Minimum dollar value of $5 million.

2. Construction of recycling and materials management facilities including, sorting systems, recycling balers, stationary waste processing shredder, and scrap metal balers. Minimum dollar value of $1 million.

3. Construction of sanitary wastewater treatment structure, including lined ponds, pump stations, receiving stations and aerators. Minimum dollar value of $1 million.

The Offeror shall demonstrate a minimum of two projects for landfills and two projects for recycling facilities as noted in items 1 and 2 above. Experience must demonstrate a minimum of one project that contains sanitary wastewater treatment as noted in item 3. The ability to work in remote locations may be evaluated more favorably.

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

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 attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment C) 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.

Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. 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). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. Offerors proposing multiple design firms should submit relevant project experience for all design firms. Failure to do so may result in a lower rating. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

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 five projects for construction and five for design. 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 those that have not worked together.

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

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing relevant features of work may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self-performance.

(3) Factor 3 – Safety:

Attachment “D” SAFETY DATA SHEET is mandatory for this factor. Font for this attachment is Times New Roman 10.

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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 sub-contractor performed work and the Offeror’s method for qualifying, evaluating, selecting all tiers of sub-contractors. The narrative shall include:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR); include three previous calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If there is no EMR premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the element.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates; submit three previous calendar years’ worth of data. If the OSHA DART and TRC rates cannot be submitted, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data negatively should be addressed as part of this element.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety should 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. Fully describe the safety management system that will be used to oversee safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work. Also describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe the 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 two pages.

Note: The narrative shall be limited to two pages. For a partnership or joint venture, the submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Safety narratives for joint ventures may be up to four pages in length.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: (Include in RFP)

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 its self-performed work and the work of its sub-contractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety management system, safety performance record, and the Offeror’s methodology of qualifying, evaluating, selecting and overseeing its subcontractors. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety will include, but are not limited to: OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS) database, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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 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 and the specific management practices that will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support.

Offeror’s Experience Modification Rates (EMR) will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than 1.0 to 1.1 Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0

(4) Factor 4 – Past Performance:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment E) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, John Goggin, john.goggin@navy.mil and Barbara Czinder, Barbara.Czinder@navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

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

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.”

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

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

Past performance ratings of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” hold more value than a “Neutral Confidence” rating and will be considered more favorably in the evaluation of past performance.

Phase Two Non-Cost/Price Factors:

Proposal Submission:

Provide one (1) original, six (6) copies, and one (1) electronic copy (CD) of the solicitation submittal requirements for Factors 5 and 6 identified below. Entire Phase Two proposal shall not exceed 50 pages in length (front side only) utilizing a minimum Arial Font of 12 for Factors 4-6.

Factor 1 through Factor 4: Resubmit only if changes have occurred since Phase One and identify changes in a different color and italicized bold font.

(4) Factor 5 – Technical Solution:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include the following:

- Processing and marketing recyclables

- Processing and sizing other materials such as wood, scrap iron, tires, and concrete debris

- Proposed specialty equipment (i.e., sorting equipment) and materials (i.e., geosynthetics) by description and manufacturer, also identify whether authorized by the manufacturer to install

- Process flow diagram for proposed equipment and handling of various waste streams and recyclables; and

- Locations where the proposed equipment is currently in operation. Include facility name, throughput, recovery percentages, years in operation, and provide a contact name, phone number and email. Provide references for each of the different equipment manufacturers and processes proposed. If the proposed equipment/manufacturer is the first of its kind, or the first in the continental United States, identify it as such.

- Quality control processes to be implemented during design and during construction.

- An ability to work on a remote military base with limited equipment and material delivery options.

- OCONUS Work Plan. The narrative shall include:

o The Offeror’s plan for shipping materials and equipment to and from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Materials and equipment are not available locally and must be provided at the contractor’s expense. Provide a plan of major equipment that is anticipated to be needed, major construction materials, and an anticipated plan for transporting to the worksite. The Contractor shall use U.S.-flag vessels when transporting any supplies by sea under this contract in accordance with DFARS Clause 252.247-7023.

o The Offeror’s plan for berthing and medical arrangements. As it is anticipated, no beds will be available, the Contractor shall construct new temporary housing facilities (man camp) in accordance with the RFP SECTION 00 73 01 for all prime and subcontractor workers required to complete this project. Provide a detailed plan of the temporary housing facilities including but not limited to housing capacity, design criteria, occupancy, shipping, delivery, and installation.

o The Offeror’s medical plan of action. Describe how the Offeror will provide and sustain a healthy workforce which includes all employees and labor force.

o The Offeror’s plan for Labor acquisition and sustainment. Local labor is unavailable and must be provided at the contractor’s expense. Provide a detailed plan of your expectations of the staffing requirements for this project, your source of labor for execution of the work, and management of personnel for the duration of the contract.

Offerors that demonstrate prior experience establishing international labor agreements may be evaluated more favorably.

o The Offeror’s plan for operation and demobilization of a concrete batch plant.

o Provide any other aspects of OCONUS work that the Offeror feels is critical to a successful project.

- Phasing Schedule and Narrative:

o Provide a schedule that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements contained in the technical specifications. Provide a narrative discussing the specifics of the Offeror’s proposed construction plan. Include in the narrative major milestones of the construction schedule and any other salient aspects that illustrate that the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements contained in the technical specifications, takes into account the requirements of the Statement of Work and is otherwise acceptable to the Government. Provide a narrative describing how the contractor intends to coordinate with both the Public Works and the BOS contractor on scheduling construction to accommodate existing solid waste operation of the proposed construction site.

Narrative shall not exceed ten (10) double-sided pages (or twenty (20) single-sided pages). Up to six (6) conceptual drawings shall be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, facility site plan and process diagrams).

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings (if included) considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OCONUS work plan, phasing schedule and phasing narrative considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s logistical ability to mobilize and ship materials and equipment though a well thought out Work Plan. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the

Offeror’s technical approach that will give the Government a high level of confidence that the work will be performed in accordance with the technical requirements of the RFP.

(5) Factor 6, Energy & Sustainable Design:

Using the guidance outlined in Part 3 of this RFP, provide a detailed narrative to describe the proposed solution, which shall meet or exceed the goal of a 30% energy budget reduction, using the ASHRAE Std 90.1-2013 (vice ASHRAE Std 90.1-2004 as referenced in EPAct 2005), Appendix G, Performance Rating Method, excluding receptacle and process loads. Provide your proposed energy budget reduction.

Provide the assumptions the offeror will use to obtain a high-performance building, which will comply with these energy reduction goals. If the offeror cannot achieve the 30% reduction because it is not life cycle cost effective, the offeror shall state why it is not life cycle cost effective and provide the percentage of energy budget reduction that will be life cycle cost effective.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s response to the Sustainable Design Factor considering energy savings and reduction or elimination of negative environmental impacts in the following areas:

- The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed energy budget reduction relative to the prescribed energy reduction goals, including evaluation of assumptions.

(End of Summary of Changes)