N6945023R0020-0002.pdf

NAVFAC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND SE

PWD ORLANDO

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO FL 32826-3224

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

N6945023R0020, Orlando MFSS

See BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE 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 04-May-2023

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6945023R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Apr-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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

04-May-2023

CODE

NAVFAC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND SE

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:

N6945023R0020

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 0002

This amendment is issued to make the following changes:

1. Section M has been revised as follows (changes are shown in red font):

a. M.1 Basis for Award, 4., is revised to approximately equal to price.

b. M.4 Evaluation Factors, (b)Non-cost/price Factors, is revised as follows:

i. The definition of a Relevant Project updates 1502000 – Facility Investment Service Orders to Emergency/Urgent/Routine (E/U/R) Work Orders or Service Orders.

ii. (1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience, updates 1502000 – Facility

Investment Service Orders to E/U/R Work Orders or Service Orders.

iii. (2) Factor 2, Technical Approach, updates Service Orders to E/U/R Work Orders.

2. The proposal due date and time is extended to 2:00 PM EDT, Thursday, 18 May 2023.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-May-2023 02:00 PM to 18-May-2023 02:00 PM.

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 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.4 EVALUATION FACTORS

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

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

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 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.

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:

(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) 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.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total proposed price, which 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:

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

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGE.

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

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(v) And/or any other methodology deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer and consistent with FAR 15.404-1.

a. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for unbalanced pricing, and may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced and represent an unacceptable risk to the government.

In general, unbalanced pricing may be found when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, line pricing at any level, between functional annexes/sub-annexes, periods of performance, type of work, or otherwise may be relatively and significantly overstated or understated.

b. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for any inconsistent pricing submitted within Section B and Section J ELIN pricing.

(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 $750,000.00 per year or greater and shall be: 1) ongoing with at least 12 months of contract performance completed by the date of receipt of initial proposals, or 2) shall be completed within the last ten (10) years. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as Multi-Function Support Services (MFSS) (or equivalent) that encompass at least two of the following:

a. 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, Emergency/Urgent/Routine (E/U/R) Work Orders or Service Orders, Preventive Maintenance, and HVAC Systems);

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

c. 1503030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) similar to the requirements of the RFP;

and

d. 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the RFP.

(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall provide a minimum of two (2) to a maximum of five (5) examples of relevant projects to be documented only on Attachment JM-1, Corporate Experience Project Data Sheet. Offerors shall not submit any information under Factor 1 unless submitted on Attachment JM-1 (with the exception of the information required for any corporate affiliate experience or first-tier small business subcontractor(s) experience submitted, to include the one-page narrative, organization chart, and teaming agreement/letter of commitment referenced below, which may be submitted in addition to the Attachment JM-1). The offeror shall clearly demonstrate recent, relevant experience as a prime contractor on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) of the RFP.

The offeror’s submitted projects must aggregately demonstrate experience self-performing or managing ALL of the following: 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, E/U/R Work Orders or Service Orders, Preventive Maintenance, and HVAC Systems); 1503020 – Pest Control similar to the requirements of the RFP; and 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the

RFP.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), recent/relevant experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have such experience, recent/relevant experience shall be submitted for each JV partner (except for offerors covered by Mentor-Protégé Agreements approved by the Small Business Administration). JV offerors are still limited to a maximum total of five (5) recent and relevant projects.

If a 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 on the submitted project was performed by the JV partner proposing on this solicitation.

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

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

c. Teaming agreement/Letter of commitment.

An offeror may rely on the prime contractor experience of first-tier small business subcontractor(s) to demonstrate experience if the experience of the small business prime does not independently demonstrate the capabilities necessary for award, provided the offeror submits all of the following:

a. Specific identification of the proposed team of first-tier subcontractor(s); and

b. Teaming agreement/Letter of commitment.

For each project, the offeror shall complete 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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The assessment of the offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will consider the depth and breadth of the relevant experience, focusing on performance of technical specifications to be performed under this contract, to evaluate the level of risk of unsuccessful performance. The Government will review only five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) project limit will not be considered. Projects must be submitted on the required Attachment JM-1.

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

Projects performed by the offeror as the prime contractor may be evaluated more favorably than those performed by affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD/member companies or subcontractors.

Projects submitted by JVs where the JV firms performed together may be evaluated more favorably than projects submitted in which the JV firms 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 as indicated in the solicitation on at least one relevant project. If each member of the JV does not have at least one relevant experience project as indicated in the solicitation, then the offeror will be considered unacceptable.

Offerors who fail to aggregately demonstrate relevant experience in ALL of the following will be considered unacceptable: 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, E/U/R Work Orders or Service Orders, Preventive Maintenance, and HVAC Systems); 1503020 – Pest Control similar to the requirements of the RFP; and 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the

RFP.

Offerors who fail to demonstrate relevant experience self-performing or managing at least one multi-function support services (or equivalent) contract; that is, a project that contains two or more services that are similar to those described in the performance work statement/specifications of the RFP, will be considered unacceptable.

Offerors who demonstrate relevant experience in 1502000 – Facility Investment Fire Protection Systems similar to the requirements of the RFP or 1503030 – Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) 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 single task order proposed, not the entire MAC or IDIQ contract, will be considered a project for evaluation purposes.

(2) Factor 2, Technical Approach:

a. Provide an organizational chart identifying the on-site organization, on-site staff, and corporate staff that will be used to perform this contract. The organization chart shall include the appropriate reporting paths and shall identify the function(s) of the various groups of the organization, staffing and associated trade classifications with skill level (journeyman, etc.) consistent with the labor hours provided in Section J Attachment JL-1.

Provide a narrative describing 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.

b. Provide labor hours 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 of performance. Provide the number of labor hours proposed for performing each technical specification item as provided on Attachment JL-1.

Provide a narrative of your rationale for the Basis of Estimate (BOE) according to the base period total labor hours for each technical specification to include individual labor classifications. Explain the methodology used to develop the number of labor hours for the base 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 be organized in the same order in which the technical specifications are listed in the RFP. The narrative shall also include how the proposed approach and labor hours will effectively achieve each performance objective and associated performance standard(s) for each technical specification while coordinating, managing, and supervising workforce personnel across all technical specifications simultaneously. Additionally, the narrative shall describe the methodology for accomplishing all Recurring and Non-Recurring Work, and demonstrate an understanding of all limits of liability identified in each respective spec item to include Service E/U/R Work Orders (all types) and Preventive Maintenance. Describe how you 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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

a. The Government will evaluate the Organizational Chart and narrative considering the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an effective and resource efficient approach to management of their workforce.

Any omission of the organizational chart and narrative submittal requirements will be considered unacceptable.

Any inconsistencies between the labor hours identified in Attachment JL-1, the organizational chart, or the Lines of Authority and management requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement will be considered unacceptable.

b. 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 BOE, and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of all RFP requirements and the labor quantities and skills needed to successfully perform. Offerors who fail to provide a completed Attachment JL-1 Labor Hours worksheet for the total effort to include the prime contractor, affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies, and all subcontractors for the base period will be 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.

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:

The offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, and CY2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

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

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

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, and CY2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

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

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

3. Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the offeror’s own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one

(1) double-sided page.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR 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.

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

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

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

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

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 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

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

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

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk

(HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR 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

3. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the offeror:

a. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(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 an attachment), 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, Courtney Peterson, via email at courtney.j.peterson3.civ@us.navy.mil (with a copy to Cari Fiebach at cari.l.fiebach.civ@us.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.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation that may be used are as follows:

- Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited;

- Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

- Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

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 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. 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)