N6945019R1725_0006.pdf

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

PWD KINGSBAY

910 USS HUNLEY AVE

NSB KINGSBAY

KINGSBAY GA 31547

ACQR5585335

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

N69450-19-R-1725 Kings Bay BOS II

See BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION on page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Mar-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 N6945019R1725

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Feb-2019

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 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

29-Mar-2019

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

FSC-BOS

BUILDING 903, PO BOX 30

JACKSONVILLE FL 32212-0030

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE N69450

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6945019R1725

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0006

This amendment is issued to make the following changes:

1. Section M – The Evaluation Factors in Paragraph M.3 have been updated as follows (changes are shown in red font):

a. Factor 1, Corporate Experience - The solicitation submittal requirements and basis of evaluation have been updated to clarify Joint Venture information.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The proposal due date and time remains 2:00 PM EST, Thursday, 4 April 2019.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M.1 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 significantly more important than 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.

M.2 PRICING DISCREPANCIES

In the event there is a difference between the unit prices and extended total amounts, the unit price will be held to be the intended offer and total of the CLIN or ELIN/Sub-ELIN will be recomputed accordingly. The CLIN which includes the recomputed ELIN/Sub-ELIN will also be recomputed to take into account the change in the ELIN/Sub-

ELIN.

If the offeror provides a total amount for a CLIN or ELIN/Sub-ELIN but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the CLIN/ELIN/Sub-ELIN quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

In the event there is a discrepancy between the Section J ELIN pricing and the Section B CLIN price, the Section J ELIN pricing will be held to be the intended offer.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Management Factor 3 – Technical Approach Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Past Performance

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical 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 5. 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 significantly more important than price.

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

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(i) Provide a completed Section B of the solicitation.

(ii) Provide a completed Section J Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) Pricing Attachment. There are multiple worksheets within this file that require completion.

(iii) Provide a completed JB-2 Supplemental Pricing Attachment for the base period of performance. Proposed prices for Direct Labor Hours, Direct Labor Cost, Direct Material, Direct Equipment, ISWM Disposal Fees, Overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), and Profit shall be provided in the same level of detail for all requirements, whether the work is proposed to be accomplished as the prime contractor, subcontractor, or by other means.

(iv) Submit pricing data (Section B, Section J ELINs, and JB-2 Supplemental Pricing) in hard copy and in electronic (i.e. Microsoft Office Version 2016 compatible) format on CD-ROM. Offerors shall utilize the pricing attachments provided in Section J to submit the ELIN and JB-2 Supplemental Pricing data in the format provided.

Because the pricing evaluation will concentrate on the electronic files submitted, in the event of a discrepancy between the proposal hard copies and the proposal electronic copies, the proposal electronic copies will take precedence.

(v) Provide a narrative (limited to 15 pages) of all costs your firm classifies as direct and indirect and describe the basis and rationale for the proposed amounts. Explain how these costs are allocated to each of the cost elements identified in the JB-2 Supplemental Pricing Attachment (Direct Labor, Direct Material, Direct Equipment, Overhead, etc.).

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

(i) The Government will evaluate price based on proposed JB-2 Supplemental Pricing at the functional (Annex/Sub-annex, Spec Item, etc.) and elemental (Direct Labor, Direct Material, Direct Equipment, etc.) level, proposed Section J ELIN pricing, and the total proposed price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of 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:

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

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGE.

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

(d) Comparison of market survey results.

(e) And/or any other methodology deemed appropriate by the

Contracting Officer and consistent with FAR 15.404-1.

(ii) Identification of unbalanced pricing including allocation to the ELIN/Sub-ELIN unit prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more prices at the functional (Annex/Sub-annex, Spec Item, etc.)

level, ELIN/sub-ELIN unit prices, or contract line items is significantly overstated or understated. An offer may be rejected if the proposed price is materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items within a pricing period, or between line items or sub-line items for the basic requirement and any option period.

(iii) Any suspected issues or concerns in the price proposal, including any inconsistent pricing submitted within Section B, the Section J ELIN attachment, and the JB-2 Supplemental Pricing.

(iv) Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an apparently unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide all required documentation.

(v) The analysis may consider whether prices are realistic in relation to the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with other portions of the offeror’s proposal. A price that is found either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award.

(b) Non-cost/price Factors:

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

RELEVANT PROJECT: Relevant projects include those that demonstrate the capability to perform services similar in size, scope, and complexity to those described in the performance work statement/ specifications of the RFP with a contract value of $4,000,000.00 per year or greater and shall be: 1) ongoing with at least 12 months of contract performance completed by the date of receipt of proposals, or 2) shall be completed within the last five (5) years. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as facility support services (or equivalent) that encompass at least one of the following:

a. 1503010 – Custodial similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, servicing at least 50 buildings in an individual project)

b. 1503020 – Pest Control similar to the requirements of the RFP

c. 1503030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management similar to the requirements of the RFP

d. 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, maintaining grounds of at least 200 acres in an individual project)

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) to a maximum of five (5) examples of recent, relevant projects that the offeror (including joint ventures and partnerships) completed and served as the prime contractor. At least one of the offeror’s submitted projects must demonstrate experience self-performing or managing a multi-function support services (or equivalent) contract; that is, a project that contains two or more of the services listed under the relevant project definition (a. through d.) above. The offeror’s submitted projects must aggregately demonstrate experience self-performing or managing the following annexes/sub-annexes: 1503010 – Custodial similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, servicing at least 50 buildings in an individual project); and 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, maintaining grounds of at least 200 acres in an individual project). For each project the offeror shall provide:

a. Contract number, title, location, and original award date.

b. Type of Contract (i.e. fixed price, cost reimbursable, etc.)

c. Client points of contact with current telephone and facsimile numbers, and electronic mail addresses if available (Confidential clients are not acceptable and will result in non-consideration of the project). Failure to provide an acceptable point of contact and a correct telephone number may result in a lower rating.

d. Description of work (service) performed- similar scope, size and complexity.

e. Describe the relevance of the project to this solicitation.

f. Percentage of the work that your firm subcontracted out.

g. Provide the final/revised contract completion date.

h. Dollar value; annually and contract life.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), submit recent, relevant projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have such experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV member.

If a submitted project was performed by a JV and not all members of that JV are proposed for this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the offeror as the prime.

An offeror may rely on the prime contractor experience of corporate affiliates (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies and parent companies) to demonstrate experience, provided the offeror submits the following:

a. A one-page narrative clearly demonstrating that the corporate affiliates will have meaningful participation in the project by identifying the personnel or resources from the corporate affiliates that will be dedicated to the project; and

b. An organization chart that demonstrates the corporate relationship of the affiliates.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: For experience, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated relevant experience and depth of relevant experience of the offeror as a prime contractor directly responsible to the owner; managing multiple subcontractors and coordinating with multiple stakeholders. 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.

Projects completed by the offeror or its corporate affiliates (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, and parent companies) in any capacity other than as prime contractor will be considered not relevant.

Projects completed by a proposed subcontractor will be considered not relevant.

Projects submitted by JVs where the JV members performed together may be evaluated more favorably than projects in which the JV members did not perform together.

With the exception of offerors covered by Mentor-Protégé Agreements approved by the Small Business Administration, if the offeror is a JV, each member of the JV must demonstrate prime contractor experience on at least one relevant project. If each member of the Joint Venture does not have at least one relevant experience project, then the offeror will be considered unacceptable.

For multiple award contracts (MACs) or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, the specific relevant task order, not the entire MAC or IDIQ contract, will be considered a project for evaluation purposes.

Offerors who fail to demonstrate relevant experience in the two following annexes/sub-annexes will be considered unacceptable: 1503010 – Custodial that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum, servicing at least 50 buildings for an individual project); and 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum maintaining grounds of at least 200 acres for an individual project).

Offerors who fail to demonstrate relevant experience self-performing or managing at least one project that contains two or more of the following services will be considered unacceptable: 1503010 – Custodial that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum, servicing at least 50 buildings for an individual project); 1503020 – Pest Control similar to the requirements of the RFP; 1503030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management similar to the requirements of the RFP; 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum maintaining grounds of at least 200 acres for an individual project). Offerors who demonstrate relevant experience self-performing or managing at least one project that is a multi-function support services (or equivalent) contract and contains services in both sub-annex 1503010 – Custodial that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum, servicing at least 50 buildings for an individual project) and 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping that is similar to the requirements in the RFP (at a minimum maintaining grounds of at least 200 acres for an individual project) may be rated higher.

Offerors who demonstrate experience without relying on corporate affiliates (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, and parent companies) may be rated higher.

(2) Factor 2, Management

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall clearly demonstrate a feasible approach for controlling and managing the entire project, including the interface between the major functional areas and sub-annexes, and the offeror’s general management and administration structure. For organizational purposes, address the requested information in the following format.

a. Workforce Management. Provide and explain a plan to organize, manage, and supervise workforce personnel to accomplish the requirements of this contract. The plan shall include an organization chart identifying the on-site organization, on-site staff, and corporate staff that will be used to perform this contract as well as the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, sub-annex area organizations, and subcontractors. The plan and the organization chart shall identify the function(s) of the various groups of the organization, direct and indirect staffing and associated trade classifications with skill level (journeyman, etc.)

consistent with the labor hours provided in Section J Attachment JB-1.

b. Quality Management System. Provide a summary “Quality Management (QM) Plan”, i.e. the quality processes (practices, resources, and activities) and minimum controls that will be used to ensure full compliance with all performance objectives and standards as described in Section C 0200000 Management and Administration. Describe the responsibilities and lines of authority of all quality personnel. Describe the methods to be used to document, measure, and control and improve the quality processes. Describe the plan for training employees in the quality processes. Describe the processes that will be used to ensure consistent satisfactory performance of subcontractors. Limit the Quality Management System submission to 6 pages.

c. Scheduling. Provide the methodology used to determine if/when there is a need to adjust the recurring work schedule. Describe scheduling procedures that will minimize interference with normal occurrence of Government business and the flexibility to adjust schedules to allow for access outside regular working hours and the flexibility to adjust to workload fluctuations. Describe procedures to manage foreseeable fluctuations in workload, for handling workload surges for non-recurring work task orders and natural disasters that could occur.

d. Phase-In and Phase-Out Plans. Provide an approach to each phase-in and phase-out plan.

The phase-in plan is limited to no more than 30 calendar days. The plans shall include: 1) a schedule for all key events; 2) personnel actions and responsibilities regarding employees at all levels; and 3) acquisition, delivery, storage, inventory and disposal of equipment, working stock, and materials (to include inbound items as applicable).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Factor 2 will be evaluated as an overall factor with no subfactors. The

Government will evaluate the management approach 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 approach to determine the likelihood that the work will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the

RFP.

The degree to which the offeror demonstrates a management plan that demonstrates an effective and resource efficient approach to management of their workforce; labor; quality management; scheduling; phase-in and phase-out plans will be evaluated.

(3) Factor 3, Technical Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Describe staffing levels for each annex and sub-annex listed below. Provide a completed Attachment JB-1 for the total effort to include the prime contractor and all subcontractors for the base period. The JB-1 shall be submitted in hard copy and MS Excel (Microsoft Office Version 2016 compatible) in the format provided. In summary, provide the rationale for Basis of Estimate (BOE) for each specification item listed in Section J Attachment JB-1. BOE shall include labor classification; annual direct and indirect labor hours; state the estimate data source(s) (such as RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data, Whitestone Building and Repair Cost Reference, etc.); and methodology used to develop the estimate for performing each specification item listed in the JB-1.

b. The offeror shall include the methodology to be implemented to accomplish the requirements in each annex and sub-annex and detail how the proposed approach will effectively achieve each performance objective and standard across all annexes and sub-annexes. For each applicable sub-annex, the offeror’s methodology shall demonstrate an approach to perform recurring services, service calls, non-recurring services, and all other spec items in the respective sub annexes. In addition to the offeror’s methodology for the Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping sub-annex, the offeror shall include an approach to maintain the Grounds Maintenance during growing seasons and during the non-growing (dormant) seasons. The approach shall include a narrative staffing for each season and how each performance objective and standard will be met with the proposed seasonal staffing for Grounds Maintenance. The methodology shall clearly demonstrate a labor efficient approach that ensures best industry practices are applied to accomplish all requirements. The methodology shall clearly demonstrate understanding of current industry standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement for each of the following annexes and sub-annexes:

Annex 15 Facilities Support 1503010 Custodial 1503020 Pest Control 1503030 Integrated Solid Waste Management 1503050 Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping 1503060 Pavement Clearance

c. Risk Mitigation. The offeror shall identify and describe how the technical approach and contingency plans will ensure mitigation of risks involving material, shortages of material, equipment, licensing and certification of workers, working in secured areas, and any other risks expected to be encountered under the performance objectives and standards of this solicitation across all annexes, sub-annexes, and spec items.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Factor 3 will be evaluated as an overall factor with no sub-factors. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s technical approach:

a. Demonstrates adequate staffing levels for each annex, sub-annex, and spec item supported by a reasonable Basis of Estimate (BOE), a reasonable understanding of the requirements and labor quantities and skills needed to successfully perform. Offerors who fail to provide a completed hard copy and MS Excel version of the Attachment JB-1 for the total effort to include the prime contractor and all subcontractors for the base period will be considered unacceptable.

b. Demonstrates an approach/methodology to effectively achieve performance objectives and standards for each annex, sub-annex, and spec item that reflects the current industry and/or commercial practices, standards and procedures for each major task. The offeror’s methodology clearly demonstrates an approach to performing services for all sub-annexes. The methodology presents a labor efficient approach that ensures best industry practices are applied to accomplish all requirements. The approach demonstrates an understanding of supply chain management necessary to ensure materials, supplies, and equipment availability meet contractual delivery timelines. The seasonal Grounds Maintenance staffing is consistent with proposed staffing identified in the Attachment JB-1. The approach demonstrates an understanding of current industry standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

c. Demonstrates an understanding of the potential, relevant risks to be encountered during contract performance as well as an approach/contingency plan to effectively mitigate risks across all annexes and sub-annexes.

d. Demonstrates realistic labor (direct and indirect), material, and equipment in relation to the work to be performed that reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with other portions of the offeror’s proposal (i.e. Attachments JB-1, JB-2, etc.).

(4) Factor 4, 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, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.) A copy of the blank Safety Data Sheet to be used for submission is provided as Attachment JM-1.

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete 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 the offeror has no EMR or 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 factor submission.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided.

Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART, and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(c) 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 two pages.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(a) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(b) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(c) Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential 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 two pages. The board 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 board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. 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.

(d) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(5) Factor 5, Past Performance

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: If a completed CPARS evaluation is available for each project submitted in response to Factor 1, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 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, Corporate 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 JM-2), 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, Angela McLean, via email at angela.mclean@navy.mil (with a copy to cari.fiebach@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.

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/Entity Identifier 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 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.

(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), 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.); and

- Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

(End of Summary of Changes)