N6945020R0018-0003.pdf

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

PWD MID-SOUTH

5722 INTEGRITY DR, BLDG 455

MILLINGTON TN 38054-5026

ACQR5783485

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

N6945020R0018, Mid-South NOSC Multi-Function Support Services (MFSS)

See BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE on page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Aug-2020

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 N6945020R0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Jun-2020

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

03-Aug-2020

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:

N6945020R0018

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 0003

This amendment is issued to make the following changes:

1. Section C – The Section C attachment has been updated. Changes within the attachment are shown in red font. The revised Section C is provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_SectionC_0003.pdf.

a. Sub-Annex 1502000 – Facility Investment

3.2.1 HVAC and Refridgeration Systems – Page 46 of 112

2. Section J - The Section J attachment has been updated. Changes within the attachment are shown in red font. The revised Section J is provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_SectionJ_0003.pdf.

a. Attachment J-1502000-03 Historical Service Order Workload – Page 42 of 169

3. Section J – The Table of Contents has been revised as follows (changes within the Table of Contents are indicated in red font):

a. Responses to Government Pre-Award Inquiries (GPIs) have been added and are provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_JL5_GPI_Responses_0003.pdf.

b. Photographs of NOSC Chattanooga have been added and are provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_JL6_Photos_NOSC_Chattanooga_0003.zip.

c. Photographs of NOSC Kansas City have been added and are provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_JL7_Photos_NOSC_Kansas_City_0003.zip.

d. Photographs of NOSC Knoxville have been added and are provided via attachment under file name N6945020R0018_JL8_Photos_NOSC_Knoxville_0003.zip.

e. The Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determinations have been updated and are provided via file names: N6945020R0018_WD15-5105(Rev-11)_0003.pdf; N6945020R0018_WD15- 4643(Rev-14)_0003.pdf; and N6945020R0018_WD15-4525(Rev-10)_0003.pdf.

f. The Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage Determinations have been updated and are provided via file names N6945020R0018_MO20200056_0003.pdf;

N6945020R0018_MO20200045_0003.pdf; N6945020R0018_TN20200092_0003.pdf; and N6945020R0018_TN20200088_0003.pdf.

g. The ELINs spreadsheet has been updated to revise the Quantities and Units of Measure for Grounds Maintenance Service Orders, add a Sub-ELIN for Automatic Gates under Facility Investment (St. Louis NOSC), and renumber X004AL - X004AT (X indicates all periods of performance). The updated spreadsheet is provided via attachment under file name J-0200000- 13_ELINs_0003.xlsx.

4. Section L – L.2 Proposal Delivery has been updated to require submission of electronic proposals in addition to hard copy proposals.

5. Section M – M.3 Evaluation Factors, 3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor,

(b) Non-cost/price Factors, the relevancy definition has been revised to update the relevant project contract value.

6. The proposal due date and time is extended to 2:00 PM EDT, 13 August 2020.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 06-Aug-2020 02:00 PM to 13-Aug-2020 02:00 PM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

This is a performance-based contract which incorporates performance-based specifications.

The files for Section C are provided as the following attachment posted on the beta.SAM website at https://beta.SAM.gov in the Contract Opportunities section:

N6945020R0018_SectionC_0003.pdf

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J

Section J – The Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments for this Section are posted on the beta.SAM website at https://beta.sam.gov with the solicitation.

The attachments are posted as individual files as indicated in the table below or in the “all-inclusive” Section J attachment under filename: N6945020R0018_SectionJ_0003.pdf.

Section J – Table of Contents

Attachment Number Attachment Title and File Name JL-1 JL1 Labor Hours spreadsheet. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL1_Labor_Hours.xlsx.

JL-2

Government Pre-award Inquiry Form (GPIF). Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL2_GPIF.xlsx.

JL-3

Virtual Site Visit Brief. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL3_Virtual_Site_Visit_Brief_0002.pdf.

JL-4

NOSC St. Louis Sign-In Sheet. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL4_St_Louis_Sign- In_0002.pdf.

JL-5 Responses to GPIs. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL5_GPI_Responses_0003.pdf.

JL-6

NOSC Chattanooga Photos. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL6_NOSC_Chattanooga_0003.pdf.

JL-7

NOSC Kansas City Photos. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL7_NOSC_Kansas_City_0003.pdf.

JL-8

NOSC Knoxville Photos. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JL8_NOSC_Knoxville_0003.pdf.

Attachment Number Attachment Title and File Name JM-1 Corporate Experience. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JM1_Corporate Experience.doc JM-2 Safety Data Sheet. Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JM2_Safety_Data.doc.

JM-3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Provided as file name N6945020R0018_JM3_PPQ.doc

J-0200000-02 Wage Determinations are provided as follows:

Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determinations:

1) For St. Louis County, Missouri: N6945020R0018_WD15-5075(Rev-15).pdf

2) For Jackson County, Missouri: N6945020R0018_WD15-5105(Rev-11)_0003.pdf

3) For Knox County, Tennessee: N6945020R0018_WD15-4643(Rev-14)_0003.pdf

4) For Hamilton County, Tennessee: N6945020R0018_WD15-4525(Rev-10)_0003.pdf

Applies to all service employees performing work on the contract. Service employees are defined in FAR 22.1001.

Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage Determinations:

1) For St. Louis County, Missouri, dated 7/3/2020: N6945020R0018_MO20200056_0003.pdf

2) For Jackson County, Missouri, dated 7/24/2020: N6945020R0018_MO20200045_0003.pdf

3) For Knox County, Tennessee, dated 6/12/2020: N6945020R0018_TN20200092_0003.pdf

4) For Hamilton County, Tennessee, dated 7/17/2020:

N6945020R0018_TN20200088_0003.pdf

Applies to all construction employees performing work on the contract.

J-0200000-11 Commander, Navy Region Southeast Instruction 4101.1B. Provided as file name J- 0200000-11CNRSEINST4101.pdf.

J-0200000-13 Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) pricing spreadsheet. Provided as file name J-0200000- 13_ELINs_0003.xlsx.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY

Proposals shall be clearly marked “SOLICITATION N69450-20-R-0018 MID-SOUTH NOSC MULTI-FUNCTION SUPPORT SERVICES”, and sent to the following address:

U. S. Mail: Other Delivery Services:

NAVFAC SE NAVFAC SE

FSC-BOS Division Acquisition Core (ATTN: Cari Fiebach)

FSC-BOS Division Acquisition Core (ATTN: Cari Fiebach)

P.O. Box 30 Building 903, Yorktown Avenue NAS Jacksonville NAS Jacksonville Jacksonville, FL 32212-0030 Jacksonville, FL 32212-0030

No other markings shall be used on the envelope or package(s). Proposals not received at the above address on or before the hour and date set for the receipt of proposals shall be subject to the provisions of FAR Clause 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2004).

In addition to hard copy proposals, proposals shall be submitted by electronic means (i.e. via email, DoD SAFE at http://safe.apps.mi/, etc.) by the due date and time to Courtney Peterson at courtney.j.peterson@navy.mil (with copy to Cari Fiebach at cari.fiebach@navy.mil). If you elect to use DoD SAFE, contact the Contract Specialist using the emails forementioned and a Request Code will be sent to enable the upload of files.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. In accordance with the FAR, 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.

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 & Technical Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

2. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) 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.

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. Proposed prices for Spec Item 3 Labor Cost, Spec Item 3 Material, Spec Item 3 Equipment, Spec Items 1 and 2 On-Site Cost, Off- Site Cost (inclusive of ISWM Disposal Fees for Sub-annex 1503030), and Profit/Fee 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.

(iii) Submit pricing data (Section B and Section J ELINs) in hard copy and in electronic (Microsoft Office Version 2016 compatible) format on CD-ROM. Offerors shall utilize the pricing attachments provided in Section J to submit the ELIN 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.

(iv) Provide a narrative (limited to 15 pages; double-sided printing is allowed; however, each side will be counted as one page) 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 Section J ELIN Attachment (Spec Item 3 Labor, Spec Item 3 Material, Spec Item 3 Equipment, Off-Site Cost, etc.).

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

(i) The Government will evaluate price based on proposed ELIN Pricing at the functional

(Annex/Sub-annex, Spec Item, etc.) and elemental (Spec Item 3 Labor, Spec Item 3 Material, Spec Item 3 Equipment, etc.) level, 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 and the Section J ELIN attachment.

(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 $300,000.00 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 Multi-Function Support Services (MFSS) services (or equivalent) that encompass at least two of the following:

a. 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, including experience with Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), HVAC Systems and completion of service orders).

b. 1501030 – Custodial 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.

Complexity will be determined based on the projects’ contract type, facilities maintained (size, quantity and type), systems maintained (quantities and capacities), program structure (combination of Preventive Maintenance Program, service orders, other recurring services) and grounds maintained (size, quantity and type).

(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. The offeror’s submitted projects must aggregately demonstrate experience self-performing or managing the following annexes/sub-annexes: 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, including experience with Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), HVAC Systems, and completion of service orders); 1503010 – Custodial similar to the requirements of the RFP; and 1503030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management similar to the requirements of the RFP. For each project the offeror shall submit a completed Attachment JM-1, Corporate Experience Project Data Sheet. All information shall be provided as requested on the form. Attachment JM-1 may be expanded and is not limited to the two (2) pages provided with the solicitation.

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, at least one relevant project shall be submitted for each JV member (except for offerors covered by Mentor-Protégé Agreements approved by the Small Business Administration). JV offerors are still limited to a maximum of five (5) recent, relevant projects.

If a submitted project was performed by a JV and not all members from the prior JV are proposing on this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV member proposing on this solicitation.

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 JV does not have at least one relevant experience project, then the offeror will be considered unacceptable.

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

Offerors who fail to aggregately demonstrate relevant experience in the three following annexes/sub-annexes will be considered unacceptable: 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, including experience with IDS, HVAC Systems, and completion of service orders); 1503010 – Custodial similar to the requirements of the RFP; and 153030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) similar to the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors who demonstrate experience self-performing or managing ISWM requirements in multiple states, either on one project or aggregately throughout submitted projects, may be evaluated more favorably. Offerors who demonstrate relevant experience in sub-annexes 1503020 – Pest Control, 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping, 1503060 – Pavement Clearance, or performing service orders for multiple functions/sub-annexes that are similar to the requirements of the RFP, may be evaluated more favorably.

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.

(2) Factor 2, Management & Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Attachment JL-1: Provide labor hours for the entire contract effort by submitting a completed

Attachment JL-1 Labor Hours worksheet (MS Excel, Microsoft Office Version 2016 compatible) for the total effort to include the prime contractor, affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies, and all subcontractors for the base period and option period 1. Provide the number of labor hours proposed for performing each technical specification item as provided on Attachment JL-1.

b. Narrative: Provide a narrative of your rationale for the Basis of Estimate (BOE) according to the annual labor hours for each technical specification to include individual labor classifications. Explain the methodology used to develop the number of labor hours per period and state the estimate data source(s) (such as RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data, CBRE Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data, etc.). Your narrative shall include how the proposed approach and labor hours will effectively achieve each performance objective and associated performance standard(s) for each technical specification, at multiple locations, with differing state regulations, while coordinating, managing, and supervising workforce personnel across all technical specifications simultaneously. Additionally, the narrative shall describe the methodology for service orders (all types) and demonstrate an understanding of all limits of liability identified in each respective spec item. The narrative shall also describe how the offeror will staff the organization including the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), administration, affiliates/subsidiaries/parent /LLC/LTD member companies, and subcontractors to include Spec Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 personnel.

c. 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).

d. Scheduling: Provide the methodology used to determine if/when, there is a need to manage fluctuations in recurring workload, handling workload surges for non-recurring work, task orders and natural disasters in accordance with DFARS Clause 252.232-7007. Any proposed methodology shall minimize interference with normal Government working hours.

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

Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s management and technical approach:

a. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s approach demonstrates adequate labor hours on an overall level, as well as for each technical specification (and each specification item) supported by a reasonable Basis of Estimate (BOE), and demonstrates 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 (Microsoft Office Version 2016 compatible) version of the Attachment JL-1 for the total effort to include the prime contractor, affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies, and all subcontractors for the base period and option period 1 will be considered unacceptable. Offerors who fail to demonstrate an understanding of the differing state regulations applicable to the ISWM requirements may be rated less favorably or considered unacceptable. Offerors who propose labor hours without a logical explanation of how they will be able to perform at the proposed staffing level may be evaluated less favorably or considered unacceptable.

b. The methodology presents an efficient approach that ensures best industry practices are applied to accomplish all requirements. The approach demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the scheduling, logistics and phase-in & phase-out plan requirements needed to successfully perform. Offerors who propose an approach which does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood the work will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the RFP may be evaluated less favorably or considered unacceptable. Approaches that exceed the Government’s requirement may be evaluated more favorably.

(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, 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-2.

a. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete calendar years’ (2017, 2018, 2019) 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. Address all extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and established negative trends 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’ (2017, 2018, 2019) 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 (double-sided printing is allowed; however, each side will be counted as one page).

(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 for 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 (double-sided printing is allowed; however, each side will be counted as one page). 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.

(4) Factor 4, 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 the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (provided as Attachment JM-3), 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, Cari Fiebach, via email at cari.fiebach@navy.mil (with a copy to Courtney Peterson at courtney.j.peterson@navy.mil) prior to the 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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 Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, and on other recent, relevant contracts documented in known sources. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, 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

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.”

(End of Summary of Changes)