NS_Newport_RFP_SIGNED.pdf

LAND EXCHANGE AND WATER/WASTEWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE DIVESTITURE

NAVAL STATION NEWPORT

NEWPORT, RI

Request For Proposal No. N40085-25-RP-00060

HEATHER M. STADLER

Real Estate Contacting Officer

December 13, 2024

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Mid-Atlantic

Norfolk, VA 23511-3095

Request For Proposal No. N40085-25-RP-00060

Table of Contents

SECTION 1 Executive Summary

SECTION 2 Existing Conditions

SECTION 3 Competitive Land Exchange Requirements and Objectives... 11

SECTION 4 Source Selection

SECTION 5 Evaluation Factors

SECTION 6 Phase II

SECTION 7 Proposal Submission Instructions

ATTACHMENTS

1. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Agreement Form

2. General Map

3. DI Rating Scale

4. Environmental Condition of Property (ECP Checklist)

5. Base Access Form

6. Past Performance Questionnaire

7. Offeror’s Cover Page

1. Executive Summary

The Department of the Navy (“DON” or “Government”) is issuing this Request for Proposal

(“RFP”) to enter into exclusive negotiations with a selected offeror, ultimately expected to result in a land exchange agreement to convey Naval Station Newport’s (“NS Newport”) water and wastewater Infrastructure (“Infrastructure”), located in Newport, RI, to a new owner/operator, in exchange for consideration as described herein. The Navy intends to use 10 U.S.C. §2869(a)(3) for the divestment of the Infrastructure at NS Newport.

Interested parties must review this RFP for specific requirements and expectations and provide written and complete responses to be considered. A potential offeror will need to demonstrate past performance history with operation and maintenance of water and wastewater Infrastructure.

Additionally, the offeror must show experience and the ability to commit to long-term ownership and operation, and a continuation of water and wastewater services to all existing and future tenants at NS Newport.

The DON expects the selected offeror to acquire the Infrastructure via a Bill of Sale along with a perpetual easement covering approximately 464 acres of property surrounding the Infrastructure.

Pursuant to this RFP the Government intends to select one offeror that, in the Government’s opinion, is best able to meet the Government’s readiness requirements and represents the proposal

“Most Advantageous” to the Government (the “Selected Offeror”). The intent is that the

Government and the Selected Offeror would enter into an exclusivity agreement, and upon agreement to terms, an Exchange Agreement to guide the parties to closing. At closing, the parties would execute a real estate out grant in the form of an Easement, a Bill of Sale for ownership of the utility Infrastructure, and a Utility Service Contract (“USC”) (collectively, the “Closing

Agreements”) to guide the terms of services the Selected Offeror will provide to NS Newport.

1.1 Authority

Under the use of 10 §U.S.C. 2869(a)(3), Exchange of Property at Military Installations, the DON is seeking to divest the Infrastructure at NS Newport. In exchange, DON is seeking in-kind consideration (IKC), as authorized under the Department of Defense (“DoD”) Pilot Program, to exercise temporary expanded real property exchange authority to accept installation support services (as defined in 10 U.S.C. §2679(f)). The success of this endeavor is predicated on completion before the end of the pilot authority, 30 June 2026.

1.2 NS Newport, Newport, RI

HISTORY. NS Newport, on behalf of DON, is currently responsible for the operation, maintenance, distribution, and capital improvements of the installation’s potable water and wastewater Infrastructure. Additionally, the DON is required to provide services on non or former

Government owned land or where DON Infrastructure runs on or through non-Government owned land to connect with the City provider of potable water and wastewater treatment or provide services to private Customers (“Customers”). After completion and submission of Attachment

(1), DON will provide the map book of areas under DON cognizance, including sites outside the fence line that are served by Navy Infrastructure and that would be included in any potential exchange. Due to limited manpower and funding constraints, it is in the DON’s best interest to divest these assets and associated operations to an eligible entity willing and able to enter into an

Exchange Agreement and Closing Agreements with the DON.

Currently, the DON does not plan to change the terms of the contracts held between the

Government and the City of Newport to provide water and for treatment of wastewater. However, the DON would contemplate any alternative proposed as part of an Exchange that is viewed as beneficial.

1.3 Property Description

1.3.1 Property/Location: For a general overview of the area, see Attachment (2).

1.3.2 Current Use: The Infrastructure currently serves the installation (DON land) as well as other entities as established under certain service agreements and real estate agreements between the DON and non-Navy Customers (including privatized military housing).

1.3.3 Current Infrastructure

1.3.3.1. Potable Water Summary:

The DON’s potable water Infrastructure is regulated by the State of Rhode Island’s

Department of Health (RIDOH). The DON has two licensed non-contiguous locations, i.e.

the Main Base and Fort Adams. Potable water for both locations is purchased from the City of Newport through metered connections.

The water Infrastructure consists of the following components:

• Four (4) fire pumping stations;

• Four (4) underground reservoirs;

• 520 fire hydrants;

• 3,000 valves; and

• 55 miles of potable water line.

The original water distribution Infrastructure was placed in service prior to the 1940’s.

RIDOH regulates the Newport Infrastructure under Permit #1000016 and #1900046 as a

Class 2 distribution waterworks. Average daily usage is about 600,000 gallons per day through 1,150 service connections. NS Newport purchases its water from the City of

Newport Water Department (“Newport Water”).

Newport Water owns and operates all of the drinking water treatment facilities on

Aquidneck Island, including the Lawton Valley water treatment plant in

Portsmouth. The Lawton Valley plant was upgraded with new treatment methods aimed to reduce the organic content in the finished water to prohibit the reaction with chlorine creating trihalomethanes as a disinfection by-product. An existing four-million-gallon reservoir was demolished to provide space for the new plant and a smaller 1.75-million-gallon tank that would improve “turnover” thereby reducing water age before distribution to Customers. This Newport Water Station

1 Plant was refurbished to include all of the new treatment processes with the exception of the GAC (granular activated carbon) filters. The GAC filters were installed in a new building on the south side of the existing facility. The project completion date was September 2014. Upgrades at both facilities now operate advanced water treatment processes using dissolved air floatation basins and GAC contactors, which will remove organics from the water as well as improve the aesthetic quality in terms of taste and odor.

-2022 Potable Water Condition Assessment

NS Newport completed water studies to evaluate drinking water quality and modeling of the water system and resulted in the development of a five-phase potable water rehabilitation plan. The plan consisted of capital improvement projects beginning in FY15 and extending through FY20. Phases One through Three were completed, which included replacement of water lines at Defense Highway, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), Fort Adams, Coddington Point and Coasters Harbor Island. A portion of the planned Phase

Four project within PPV Greene Lane Housing was awarded in FY21 and began construction in FY22. Remaining projects will compete for possible funding in FY24 and future FYs, until the Navy conveys ownership and maintenance responsibilities as anticipated by this exchange. Additionally, a project to replace a portion of potable water lines under Pier 2 was completed in FY22. Overall, the condition assessment of the system is designated with a Degradation Index (DI) Rating 3. This rating indicates the mission is being met, but there are problems that are causing degradation of mission and effort to overcome. Repair/maintenance projects can be associated with this classification, but they are deferrable at the moment. The DI Ratings range from 1 through 5, shown in Attachment

(3). A rating of 1 indicates a fully functional asset with no noticeable defects, with possibly some aging or visible wear. A rating of 5 indicates extensive deterioration or defects in the asset. The rating is for non-functional, barely functional or assets beyond repair. The water study is not equivalent to standard private water and wastewater condition assessments and should not be relied upon to establish compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

1.3.3.2. Wastewater Summary: The NS Newport wastewater collection and pumping system includes systems across the installation serving Coasters Harbor Island, Coddington

Cove, Coddington Point, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), Navy Housing, and other activities. There are a total of 15 service areas that make up the sanitary sewer collection system. Additionally, sewage flows from private Customers that purchase water directly from the municipality and are directed to the NS Newport sanitary sewer system.

The sewer collection system consists of approximately 33 miles of gravity lines, six miles of force mains, and 16 pump stations. Wastewater is discharged through three main connections to the City of Newport. These are pump stations 48 (Coddington Cove), 68

(Training Station Road), and 338 (Coddington Point). The average sewage flow for NS

Newport is approximately 1 million gallons per day. NS Newport purchases all of its wastewater treatment services from the City of Newport.

The City of Newport recently completed a $35M+ capital improvement project at the wastewater treatment plant facility and the Navy provided funding in the amount of $5.863M in FY20 for the Navy proportional share of these improvements.

-2022 Wastewater Condition Assessment

The wastewater collection Infrastructure can be broken down as follows:

• 33 miles of gravity service mains;

• 6 miles of force mains;

• 790 manholes; and

• 16 pump stations.

The overall condition assessment of the system is a Degradation Index (DI) Rating of 2/3.

This rating indicates the mission is being met, but there are problems that are causing degradation of mission and effort to overcome. The DI Ratings range from 1 through 5, shown in Attachment (3). A rating of 1 indicates a fully functional asset with no noticeable defects, with possibly some aging or visible wear. A rating of 5 indicates extensive deterioration or defects in the asset. The rating is for non-functional, barely functional or assets beyond repair. The wastewater study is not equivalent to standard private water and wastewater condition assessments and should not be relied upon to establish compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The FY22 sanitary sewer collection system projects by NS Newport consisted of replacing a 40’ section of failing gravity sewer main piping within PPV Green Lane Housing and cleaning and performing CCTV inspection of five miles of gravity sewer main within three

PPV housing areas (Coddington Cove, Hart Field and Farragut Field).

FY23 projects included repairing a prioritized list of sewer manholes based on a sewer manhole inspection project completed in FY21 as well as cleaning and performing CCTV inspection of seven miles of gravity sewer main in Coddington Cove/Coddington Point areas of the base.

1.3.4 Related Information/Existing Infrastructure:

Infrastructure is located throughout the 1000 +/- acres of Government-owned property on the western shore of Aquidneck Island in towns of Portsmouth and Middletown and in the City of

Newport. Aquidneck Island is located in the East Passage of Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.

In addition to the contiguous property, including Coasters Harbor Island, the installation includes non-contiguous property at Fort Adams. DON’s divestment interest includes the Infrastructure at

Coasters Harbor Island and Fort Adams. Additional geographic areas for divestment include the privatized military housing areas known as Melville Housing, Greene Lane Housing, Coddington

Cove Housing, Coasters Harbor Housing, Naval Hospital Housing, Cloyne Court Housing, Farragut Field Housing, and Hart Field Housing. Further, under arrangements with certain

Customers, the DON is obligated to provide delivery services to parcels previously disposed of by the Government to include the following:

• Melville School (owned by the Town of Portsmouth)

• Melville Campground (owned by Town of Portsmouth)

• Leland Point (privately-owned residential area in Town of Portsmouth); former

Rainbow Heights Navy Housing

• Marine Trades (privately-owned commercial entities in Melville, Portsmouth including Hinckley Yachts, Hood Enterprise, East Passage Yachting, Hunt Yachts, Alden Yachts)

• Marshall Property (privately-owned multi-use development in Melville, Portsmouth); also known as O'Neill Property; AKA Melville Landfill

• Greene Lane Group Home (owned by the State of RI)

• Landings (privately-owned residential are in Town of Middletown); former

Coddington Cove Navy Housing

• Sixty (60) private residences on Training Station Road, Third Street and Sycamore

Street in the City of Newport that discharge into the Navy’s Infrastructure near the

Navy Hospital.

• Fort Adams (historic structure and associated facilities owned by the State of RI)

These Customers were established in the sewer contract between the DON and the City. The DON receives a credit, from the City, for the use of government owned lines that transport potable water to and wastewater from these Customers.

1.4 Project Summary

1.4.1 Project Goal:

The following objectives have been set for this project:

1.4.1.1 The Selected Offeror shall finance, plan, provide necessary equipment, perform necessary upgrades, operate, and maintain the Infrastructure and receive market fees from end users.

1.4.1.2 Enter into a service agreement with the Navy to operate, maintain, and provide services;

1.4.1.3 Maximize system reliability to the Navy and the Navy’s Customers;

1.4.1.4 Integrate development activities with cultural resources and environmental policy management requirements compatible with the mission of NS Newport;

1.4.1.5 Successfully delineate and integrate environmental regulatory compliance and policy requirement responsibilities of the Selected Offeror and the Government; as well as, provide information to support Navy's compliance with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requirements;

1.4.1.6 Employ the best commercial practices to the benefit of both the Navy and the community; and

1.4.1.7 DON to divest of ownership and maintenance of the water and wastewater

Infrastructure to obtain IKC that is no less than fair market value of the property being conveyed.

1.4.2 Project Concept

1.4.2.1 The DON vision is to divest of the Government owned class II (Infrastructure) property via Bill of Sale, enter into an easement containing the necessary area for the utilities traversing the DON property, and enter into a USC whereby the Selected Offeror maintains the infrastructure and provides water and wastewater services to the installation, Government entities and Customers. Relatedly, to meet the requirements of the land exchange pilot program, the Government expects to receive in-kind consideration (IKC), preferably in the form of installation-support services as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2679(f)

(which can include utility services, such as water and wastewater delivery).

1.4.2.2 The offering of property, equipment and Infrastructure will be in “as is where is” condition.

1.4.2.3 Government personnel currently hold historical knowledge of the Infrastructure and its location. It is expected that any agreement(s) executed with the Selected Offeror will include language that the firm will consider offering Government personnel whose positions are or will be adversely affected as a result of the exchange a right of first refusal for employment openings in positions for which they are qualified. The Selected Offeror will be expected to have the capability to operate and maintain the Infrastructure in accordance with the Rhode Island Department of Health license requirements immediately upon execution of the agreements, regardless of the availability of government personnel.

1.4.3 Approach

1.4.3.1 The source selection will utilize a two-phased, best value process. Phase I proposals will be evaluated based on their technical merit. An offeror will be selected to submit a Phase II proposal for the exclusive negotiation of the Exchange Agreement

1.4.3.2 In Phase I, Offeror(s) shall submit written technical proposals reflecting their qualifications and understanding of the overall competitive exchange concept. Offeror(s) are advised that the Navy does not intend to allow proposal revisions, and instead intends to make a selection based on the initial proposals received. However, the Navy reserves the right to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, as described in the below subsections, if it determines discussions are necessary.

1.4.3.3 If an Offeror’s proposal is not included in the competitive range, it will be eliminated from further consideration. The rationale for eliminating an Offeror from the competitive range shall be documented. The Navy shall provide unsuccessful Offerors with prompt, written notice of their exclusion from the competitive range.

1.4.3.4 The Navy may hold discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range. Upon conclusion of these discussions, all Offerors in the competitive range shall be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposals. Discussions will be closed when the Navy issues its written request for the Revised Proposals. If revisions to an Offeror’s initial proposal are made, the Offeror shall be required to clearly identify in its Revised Proposal submission those portions of its proposal that have been revised.

1.4.3.5 Revised Proposals (if discussions are conducted and the Navy issues the request for revisions to the Offeror’s proposals) will be evaluated by the Navy for technical merit and in the same manner employed for the evaluation of Offerors’ initial proposals.

1.4.3.6 It is the Navy’s intent to select the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the RFP, is the most advantageous to the Government and is best suited to guide exclusive negotiations for an Exchange Agreement. The rating methods set forth in this RFP will be used in evaluating proposals. The relative strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal will be evaluated. The Offeror selected for exclusive negotiations shall be determined financially capable and otherwise responsible within the meaning of FAR

9.104-1.

2. Existing Conditions

2.1 Project Considerations

2.1.1 Regulatory

NS Newport was placed on the National Priorities List in 1989 due to the contamination present inside the base fence line. A Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) was executed in 1992 between the

Navy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management (DEM) to facilitate the restoration of these sites. The FFA specifies how the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites are studied and cleaned-up. There are 15

ERP sites at NS Newport.

Any proposed work on the Infrastructure must take local/state and federal requirements into consideration.

NS Newport is a Superfund site. While some areas of contamination or interest (“AOCs/AOIs”), have been identified, land use control requirements could potentially apply in some locations. The sites listed below prohibit disturbance of soil and prohibit ground water use with CERCLA LUCs in place:

• Site 1 (McAllister Landfill)

• Site 7 (Tank Farm 1)

• Site 8 (NUWC Pond area)

• Site 9 (OFFTA)

• Site 10 (Tank Farm 2)

• Site 11 (Tank Farm 3)

• Site 12 (Tank Farm 4)

• Site 13 (Tank Farm 5)

• Site 19 & Site 4 (Derecktor Shipyard and the old Coddington Cove Rubble fill area)

• Site 23 (Coddington Point).

NS Newport has a soil management plan in place to address arsenic in soil as quantities found on the installation exceed the state’s “safe” level. Digging and ground water use is prohibited at all contaminated lands. The Soil Management Plan (SMP) applies to all lands including

Environmental Restoration Sites and Privatized Housing Sites or portions of those sites that did not undergo a background investigation that resulted in a RIDEM approved alternative limit for arsenic.

Transfer of Underground Storage Tanks (“USTs”), to include USTs 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, must comply with 250-RICR-140-25-1.18 in order for RIDEM concurrence for the transfer. The sewerage system permit must be transferred in accordance with

Newport Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13.10.070.E. See Attachment (4) for additional information.

2.1.2 Historical, Cultural, and Archeological

2.1.2.1 The following facilities with the year built do not require a Historic American

Buildings Survey (HABS) evaluation to determine if they are eligible for the National

Register: 988 MEL (1991), 1181 MEL (1995), 1271 NH (1988) and U30 MEL (1991).

2.1.2.2 The following facilities with the year they were determined not eligible for the

National Register: 315 CP (1995), 62 MEL (2008), 31 MEL (2008), 158 CHI (2020), 170

CHI (2020), 338 CP (2020), 361 CP (2020), 74 CC (1998), 68 NH (2020), and 399 CP

(2020).

2.1.2.3 The following facilities require evaluation to determine if they are eligible for the

National Register are as follows: 48 CC, 448 FA, 694 MID, 820 MEL, and 987 MEL. The

Selected offeror shall conduct an architectural survey to determine eligibility and submit it to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for their concurrence. The change of ownership of a property eligible for the National Register from federal to private is considered an adverse effect because of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements for federal agencies. NAVSTA Newport completed an Architectural Survey

Update (1946-1968) in 2017. The survey received Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) concurrence in October 2020. RIHPHC issued concurrence in October 2020.

2.1.2.4 The following buildings with the year they were built must undergo a Historic

American Buildings Survey (HABS) for cultural significance and submitted to the SHPO for their concurrence as follows: 694 MID (1972) and 987 MEL (1970).

2.1.2.5 In accordance with the Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) Checklist, archeological sites cannot be disturbed. There are relatively few known archaeological resources within the NAVSTA Newport property, although the lower Narragansett Bay area does have a rich archaeological record. The relative scarcity of archaeological resources within the NAVSTA Newport property is generally attributable to the intensive landscape alteration that has occurred with expansion of naval facilities since the late nineteenth century. The 2014-2018 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan shows

3 sensitive and 5 recorded archaeological areas. The sensitive areas are H-2 CHI, H-4 CP, and H-5 CC. The recorded areas are RI 2492 FA, RI 2462 MEL, RI 2519 MID, RI 0942.1

MID, and RI 2520 MEL. The plan also shows 2 recorded sites near but not on Navy property that are RI 0942.2 MEL and RI 0942.3 MEL. See Attachment (4) for additional information.

2.1.3 Natural Resources/Threatened or Endangered Species

2.1.3.1 In accordance with the Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) Checklist, there are no restrictions or land use controls necessitated by Natural Resources issues. However, threatened, or endangered species have been identified to include the Northern Long-eared

Bat, Tricolored Bat, Roseate Tern, and Monarch Butterfly. The listed species and their habitat cannot be disturbed. See Attachment (4) for additional information.

2.1.4 Easements and Encumbrances

Infrastructure laying outside of the installation’s boundary that would be included in any potential divestiture is captured within the map of areas under DON cognizance; to be sent after the completion and submission to Navy point of contact (POC) of Attachment (1), Controlled

Unclassified Information (CUI) Agreement Form. The map contains currently known in-grants expected to be transferred to the Offeror and/or terminated by the Navy to have a new agreement put in place by the new owner/operator at closing. Currently unaccounted grants are a potential and will need to be in place once the transfer is complete; the Selected Offeror will work with

Navy to complete the action.

2.1.5 Utility Requirements

The current Infrastructure runs off NS Newport’s electrical grid. A separate contract will be required to purchase electricity from NS Newport. The Selected Offeror may be required to obtain electric services from the installation’s electric utility. The Navy will need to execute a

Determination & Findings (D&F) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2686 to authorize sale of utilities to a third party, which will only be authorized for a limited period of time, though renewals may be granted at the Government’s discretion. The Selected Offeror should seek to transition to non-

DON electrical service outside the fence line before expiration of any such D&F.

The Selected Offeror will be required to provide water/wastewater services to the Navy and its

Customers. The Government’s willingness and ability to consummate the ultimate exchange will depend on the Selected Offeror’s ability to establish arrangements with these Customers that will become effective immediately upon turnover of the Infrastructure and operation responsibilities.

2.1.6 Property Inspection

The DON intends to offer the opportunity to conduct a site visit to all offerors on 14 January 2025 at 8:30 AM. Coordination for the site visit will require necessary DBIDS screening and submission of Attachment (5) and Attachment (1) for all visitors no later than 31 December 2024.

3. Competitive Land Exchange Requirements and Objectives

3.1 Summary of Land Exchange Process

3.1.1 After selection of the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government, the

DON intends to award an exclusivity agreement and right of entry to the Selected Offeror.

3.1.2 Selected Offeror will, at its cost, conduct the required surveys and assessments as outlined in Section 6 below.

3.1.3 Following the completion and DON approval of the requirements listed in Section 6, the DON and the selected exchange partner will enter into exclusive negotiations to finalize the Closing Agreements. During this period, both parties will come to concurrence on the both the type and amount of in-kind consideration (“IKC”), how it will be provided to NS

Newport, and how the offeror will provide services to the Customers.

3.2 Consideration

3.2.1 As required by the legislation, consideration to the Navy shall be no less than the fair market value of the property to be conveyed (easement value plus Infrastructure value). 10

U.S.C. §2869(a)(3) allows the Government to accept IKC in the form of “installation support services” as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C. §2679, and this is the type of consideration the DON is most interested in for this project. The Exchange Agreement shall detail how in-kind consideration (“IKC”) will be provided to the Navy. If IKC cannot be provided in an amount equal to or exceeding the fair market value (FMV) of the property to be conveyed, a partial cash equalization payment will be required to ensure FMV is received.

3.3 Environmental Considerations

3.3.1 The Selected Offeror shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary air, wastewater, storm water, drinking water, and other environmental permits, as required for any work being conducted on the Infrastructure. The Selected Offeror shall be the permit holder of any necessary permits related to the Infrastructure after exchange.

3.4 Taxes

3.4.1 The Selected Offeror shall be independently responsible for any and all taxes, assessments, or payments in lieu of taxes that may be levied against its interests, activities, and operations on the property after exchange.

4. Source Selection

4.1 Proposal Contents and Format

Interested parties responding to this RFP must provide a proposal structured in conformance with the outline shown below. Please number pages and tab the proposal according to the headings established below. The submission should be concise, only provide relevant material, and include tables, graphs, or other visual aids where appropriate.

Submittal

Section Description of Factor Number of Submittals Page Limit1.3

(8.5 x 11”)

I Executive Summary One original, 4 copies2 5 pages

II Relevant Experience One original, 4 copies2 5 pages

III Past & Present Performance One original, 4 copies 2 5 pages

IV Financial Information One original, 4 copies 2 10 pages

V Maintenance/Management Capacity

/Plan

One original, 4 copies2 15 pages

TOTAL 40 pages

NOTES:

1. Any pages exceeding the limits set above will be destroyed and not evaluated. Supporting data such as mandatory forms, resumes, financial statements, certifications, property plans, design drawings, photos, organizational charts, etc. do not count against the page limits indicated above.

2. Timeliness will be determined based on receipt of hard copies. Electronic copies may be requested in the future, at the

Government’s discretion. If electronic copies are requested, all sections of the proposal should be submitted on the same disk. Do not submit a thumb drive or external drive, as the Government is not permitted to connect such devices to

Government computers.

3. All sections of the Proposal will be provided in a ten (10) font size or greater.

4.1.1 Executive Summary

The Executive Summary is intended to familiarize the Navy with the Offeror’s organization, not to summarize the remaining sections of the proposal. The Offeror’s

Executive Summary is for informational purposes only and will not be rated. The Executive

Summary shall contain the following information:

4.1.1.1 The name, address, telephone, and e-mails of each principal, partner, and/or co-venturer participating on the Offeror’s team and full contact information for the representative authorized to act on behalf of the team who will serve as the main point-of-contact for all communications relating to the RFP.

4.1.1.2 A description of the Offeror’s status (whether a corporation, a nonprofit or charitable institution, a partnership, a limited liability company, a business association, or a joint venture) indicating jurisdiction under whose law the Offeror is organized and operating, and a brief history of the Offeror’s organization and its principals.

4.1.1.3 Date and location of establishment and the date of incorporation under the present name.

4.1.1.4 Explanation of types of services the Offeror provides and how they relate to the proposal.

4.1.1.5 Whether the Offeror (or any corporate affiliate or team member1) has ever been terminated for default, non-compliance, or non-performance on a contract or lease. The

Offeror shall provide a detailed description; and whether it (or any corporate affiliate or team member), has been within the past five (5) years, in litigation, arbitration, or have had any judgments against the Offeror (or corporate affiliate or team member). If so, provide a detailed description.

4.1.1.6 Statement regarding whether the Offeror ever maintained or currently maintains, errors and omissions insurance and, if so, the amount of the coverage, deductible, and the carrier of the insurance.

4.1.1.7 If the Offeror is a corporation, limited liability company, or other business organization established under the corporate laws of the relevant jurisdiction (including an

1 As used in this document, the term “team member” refers to another entity, not related to the offeror through corporate affiliation, who is expected to provide support on the project. This would typically include firms under contract with the Offeror.

incorporated joint venture), provide the following: (1) Articles of Incorporation and by-laws; (2) Names of anticipated team member, officers and participating principals indicating which individuals currently have base access and/or completed a background check (clearance will need to be obtained upon selection for installation access); (3)

Corporate resolution authorizing the proposed transaction; and (4) Summary of Corporate

Activity.

4.1.1.8 If the Offeror is an unincorporated partnership or joint venture, the following: (1) partnership/joint venture agreement; (2) Names of anticipated team members, officers and participating principals indicating which individuals currently have base access and/or completed a background check (clearance will need to be obtained upon selection for installation access); and (3) each principal member's appropriate history and background, assigned areas of responsibility, and any legally enforceable agreements or other mechanisms that will be relied on to ensure the Offeror's successful long-term operation.

4.1.1.9 If the Offeror is a sole proprietorship, provide the Name indicating whether the individual holds base access and/or completed a background check (clearance will need to be obtained upon selection for installation access).

4.1.1.10 If the Offeror intends to hire affected Government personnel as anticipated in

Section 1.4.2.3 provide notification for DON’s future workforce planning.

4.1.2 Relevant Experience

Offerors shall provide the following information on projects in which the Offeror (or a team member) acted as the Project Lead. Identified projects must express the type of project performed along with the period of performance. Identified projects must demonstrate an ability to perform a project of comparable magnitude and complexity to the solicited requirement.

4.1.2.1 Include a list with at least two (2) and no more than five (5) relevant projects which the Offeror successfully completed or currently has in progress. Recent experience may be considered more favorable in evaluations.

4.1.2.2 In the case of joint ventures, projects performed by the joint venture offering on this project should be presented, if available. If none are available, joint venture offerors may submit projects performed by individual joint venture members. Joint venture offerors are still limited to a maximum of five (5) projects total. That said, the government may not assign as much weight to projects performed by individual JV members as compared to projects performed by the Offering entity.

4.1.2.3 Offerors may also submit projects performed by proposed team members, if accompanied with a detailed description of the team members’ proposed manner of involvement in the project. That said, the government may not assign as much weight to projects performed by team members as compared to projects performed by the Offeror.

4.1.2.4 To be considered relevant, a sample project must demonstrate a period of performance greater than 12 months and either:

o operation of a regulated public water system (PWS) that provides water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year (a “Water Project”), OR o operation of a wastewater collection system with greater than 50 connections and a population over 1,000 people (a “Wastewater Project”).

4.1.2.5 Through a project need only show one of the two above items to be determined relevant, the offeror’s collective experience must include at least one relevant Water

Project, and at least one relevant Wastewater Project. Additionally, offerors that provide projects that show experience with both Water and Wastewater systems at the same location may be considered more favorably than offerors who are only able to demonstrate that experience at different locations.

4.1.2.6 For each project listed, the following information shall be provided:

4.1.2.6.1 The name, address, type, cost, and size of the project;

4.1.2.6.2 The name and address of the owner of each project;

4.1.2.6.3 A minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) photos of each project

(each photo not exceeding 8-1/2” by 11” in size);

4.1.2.6.4 A description of how the project achieved an acceptable level of quality in the project planning and similarity to the proposed project;

4.1.2.6.5 A summary description of property management/maintenance services provided including scope of services and standards of performance;

4.1.2.6.6 The Offeror’s role and services provided for each project; and

4.1.2.6.7 Any other pertinent information to sufficiently describe each project.

4.1.3 Past & Present Performance

4.1.3.1 The Offeror shall identify at least four (4) individuals for whom the Offeror (or team member) has successfully developed a relevant project (as defined above), including for all sample projects listed under the Experience element. Submit a completed

Attachment (6) from each such individual.

4.1.3.2 In addition to the above, the Offeror shall provide Attachment (6) from other project stakeholders that the Offeror considers important for the Navy to understand the success of the Offeror’s projects.

4.1.3.3 These references should be able to assess the degree of client (or other stakeholder) satisfaction. The Navy intends to contact the Offeror’s references who may be asked to discuss their satisfaction with the Offeror’s performance with respect to the following:

4.1.3.3.1 Quality of the working relationship with the client (facility tenant and/or owner)

4.1.3.3.2 Professionalism and integrity with which the Offeror conducted business

4.1.3.3.3 Responsiveness to the client’s needs and expectations

4.1.3.3.4 Level of communication

4.1.3.3.5 Value added to the project as the result of cost savings, favorable financing, positive asset management, etc.

4.1.3.3.6 Delivery of the project within budget and on schedule

4.1.3.3.7 Quality control of the project design and construction

4.1.3.3.8 Other relevant aspects of the management of a project development for a client

4.1.3.4 The Offeror shall list all disputes and/or issues encountered in the sample projects and provide information on the resolution.

4.1.4 Financial Information

Provide sufficient financial information demonstrating the Offeror’s experience in dealing with the financing of similar projects, as well as the Offeror’s strategy to secure financing for this project. The Offeror shall provide the following:

4.1.4.1 Dun & Bradstreet numbers for Offeror, all JV members (if Offeror is a JV), and all team members.

4.1.4.2 Audited financial statements (or 10Ks if the entity is publicly owned) for the last three (3) full fiscal years (parent and holding companies should submit audited financial statements if they intend to commit resources to a developer or joint venture in which they own a controlling interest). The financial statements should be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and the financial auditor must be a nationally recognized firm in the accounting industry. The submission must include an assertion as to the accuracy made by the auditor. Auditor contact information should also be provided.

4.1.4.3 If audited financial statements have not been performed for the Offeror’s corporation or partnership, or if the Offeror is an individual, a complete and current personal financial statement for the Offeror and all the Offeror’s partners/officers.

4.1.4.4 A description of financing arrangements that the Offeror has structured for major relevant projects that are similar in scope to the proposed project. Include information on previous debt and equity sources, terms, and any fees.

4.1.4.5 The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of at least two (2) commercial or institutional credit references from which the Offeror has previously obtained financing. The Offeror shall attach a letter authorizing each credit reference to respond to inquiries from the Navy.

4.1.4.6 The Offeror shall identify the sources, and, if possible, the relative amounts from these sources, from which the Offeror expects to derive revenue during implementation and operation of the project.

4.1.4.7 Describe the Offeror’s plan for reinvesting revenues earned back to the project itself. This should include anticipated timing and levels of refinancing and the proposed disposition of proceeds from refinancing as well as plans for adjusting the reinvestment approach in response to market standards.

4.1.4.8 Provide a description and documentation demonstrating the Offeror’s strategy to obtain financing (i.e. – debt or equity) for the project, including anticipated costs and why this strategy offers the best value to the Government.

4.1.4.9 Discuss the Offeror’s capability to secure operating capital for the project.

4.1.5 Maintenance/Management Capacity/Plan

This seeks to assess the Offeror’s capability to understand and address the project’s maintenance and management responsibilities including maintenance, repair, and operation of the

Infrastructure, as well as management experience. Specifically, the Offeror should provide their approach to maintenance/management of the project. In addition, the Offeror should include detailed information (e.g. resumes) on personnel that will be involved in the management of the project.

4.1.5.1 Understanding of Anticipated Operational Requirements:

4.1.5.1.1 The Offeror shall submit a detailed narrative describing its proposed vision for the project, including an accurate overall description expressing their knowledge and understanding (knowledge on: testing, metering, outage, and casualty response) of the intended operation of the Infrastructure proposed for consignment, including any necessary repair, renovation, or construction efforts.

Focus of the service being delivered should be on reliability and resiliency.

Relatedly, in light of the fact that this project only envisions transfer of delivery systems, but not the water treatment plant(s), please describe the proposed interaction with the provider(s) of the commodities. Special emphasis will be placed on how the Offeror’s approach addresses the entire project and how it demonstrates a clear understanding of the scope and complexity associated with the project.

4.1.5.1.2 The Offeror shall provide a concept outline which shall include, but is not limited to, the following items: 1) quality control plan; 2) safety plan; 3) phasing/sequencing, including detailed logic diagram with major milestones; and

4) applicable project coordination (A&E involvement, as applicable); 5) Timeframe to complete Selected Offeror’s Studies as defined herein; see Section 6.

4.1.5.1.3 The Offeror shall provide the following information on the key personnel overseeing the execution of this project:

4.1.5.1.3.1 Identify its “key personnel” (those persons considered critical to the accomplishment of the project) and their respective roles. Indicate the extent to which its key personnel have worked together as a team on projects of the same or greater financial magnitude and on projects of the same nature.

4.1.5.1.3.2 A resume for each of the Offeror’s “key personnel”. Each resume shall be limited to one (1) page, must include a description of the individual’s duties and responsibilities, education, knowledge, skills, expertise, and other qualifications relevant to this RFP.

4.1.5.1.3.3 For each “key personnel” resume, the Offeror will be required to attach a statement defining the extent of the individual’s availability and corporate commitment. The statement must clearly indicate whether the individual is or is not currently an employee of the Offeror and, if not so employed, what kind of commitment the Offeror has obtained from the person or offer of employment the Offeror has made to the person to assure availability of this person.

4.1.5.2 Explanation of Use Consistent With Navy Mission, Goals, and Objectives:

4.1.5.2.1 This element considers the extent to which the Offeror’s approach indicates an understanding of the Navy and NS Newport’s goals (as articulated in this RFP) and a realistic approach to accomplishing them. Specifically, Offerors should describe how their proposal meets the water and wastewater requirements of the Navy and the Navy’s Customers, including how the Offeror will handle the transfer and management of NS Newport’s Customer accounts. The Offeror shall provide a description of how they intend to structure the utility service sales contracts with the Navy and the Customers. The Offeror shall describe how they will coordinate with the providers of the commodities, and how recapitalization costs will be captured.

4.1.5.3 Knowledge of the Project

4.1.5.3.1 This element aims to allow the Offeror to explain their understanding of the land exchange statute, pilot program concept, and their own vision for providing

IKC in exchange for property.

4.1.5.3.2 The Offerors proposal should include a brief narrative that demonstrates their understanding of the land exchange statute, any specific conditions or restrictions that may apply to the land post-exchange, any statutory requirements for environmental impact assessments and public interest reviews, which might involve input from agencies or other stakeholders, timelines associated with the pilot authority, how In-Kind Consideration (“IKC”) will be incorporated into the exchange.

5. Evaluation Factors

The evaluation factors for Phase I are identified below. Factor 1, Offeror’s Relevant Experience, Factor 2, Past and Present Performance, and Factor 4, Offeror’s Maintenance/Management

Capacity/Plan, are of the greatest importance and are approximately equal in importance to one another. The remaining Factor 3 (Financial Information) is of lesser importance than Factors 1, 2, and 4.

5.1 Focus of Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Relevant Experience: This factor considers the extent of the Offeror’s corporate experience in successfully implementing, operating, and maintaining water and wastewater Infrastructure. The Navy’s evaluation intends to consider the types of work and volume of work completed by an Offeror that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement. Firms may be considered more favorably if they demonstrate experience with exchange transactions as envisioned herein.

Factor 2: Past and Present Performance: This factor considers information about relevant projects performed by the Offeror specifically to determine how well an offeror performed on the similar projects. Firms may be considered more favorably if they demonstrate successful performance of exchange transactions as envisioned herein.

Factor 3: Financial Information: This factor considers the extent of the Offeror’s experience in dealing with the financing of similar projects, especially under an out-grant arrangement as well as the Offeror’s strategy to secure financing for this project.

Factor 4: Maintenance/Management Capacity/Plan: This factor considers the Offeror’s capability to understand and address the project’s maintenance and management responsibilities including maintenance, repair, operations, and management experience.

This feature is critical to the project’s long-term viability. It will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s approach indicates the understanding of the Navy’s mission, goals, concepts, and objectives, as described in this RFP, and a realistic approach to accomplishing them.

5.2 Evaluation Ratings

Each evaluation factor and element will be assigned one of the ratings defined below. After each technical factor is rated, each proposal will receive an overall rating, also in accordance with the ratings defined below.

EXCEPTIONAL (E): (Proposal/factor) demonstrates a thorough and detailed understanding of the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths.

Strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses, if any. Proposal/factor represents a high probability of success with a very low degree of proposal and performance risk.

GOOD (G): (Proposal/factor) demonstrates a good understanding of requirements.

Technical approach and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards.

Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths outweigh weaknesses, if any.

Proposal/factor represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of proposal and performance risk.

SATISFACTORY (S): (Proposal/factor) demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities meet performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. Proposal/factor represents a reasonable probability of success with overall moderate degree of proposal and performance risk.

MARGINAL (M): (Proposal/factor) demonstrates a limited understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. Proposal/factor represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of proposal and performance risk.

Proposal/factor might be made satisfactory with additional information and without a major revision of the proposal (if discussions are held).

POOR (P): (Proposal/factor) demonstrates lack of understanding of requirements.

Technical approach and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies.