80KSC018R0001_-_Source_Select_State.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Replace Air Handling Units (AHUs), Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), Bid Package No. 5 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 80KSC018R0001

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the Replace Air Handling Units (AHUs), Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), Bid Package No. 5 at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project consists of removing the existing air handling units AHU-21 and AHU-23 in their entirety and replacing them with new air handling units, to include all electrical connections.

B. A synopsis was published on the Federal Business Opportunities website on October 2, 2017.

The solicitation was issued on October 19, 2017. Three (3) amendments were issued (Amendment 01, November 8, 2017, Amendment 02, November 16, 2017 and Amendment 03, November 22, 2017). The proposals were received no later than November 27, 2017.

C. Two (2) offers were received: Precision Mechanical, Inc. (PMI) and Sauer Group, Inc (Sauer).

All Offerors were checked against the Excluded Parties List System. None of the offerors appeared on the List. The lowest priced offeror was also checked against Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System and there were no reports. The bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged the amendments.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of Donald Nowicki (KSC-NET80), Samori Ball (KSC-NET70), Randall A. Gumke (OP-CS-A), and Phil Falk (KSC-SAE30). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is Sherry L. Gasaway (OP-CS-A).

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

A. Introduction:

This is a single award acquisition with award being made to the offeror deemed to be responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal offers the lowest price and is technically acceptable.

The Government evaluated proposals in accordance with the solicitation and will award a contract without discussions.

B. Evaluation Factors

This acquisition is being procured under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Evaluation and selection for contract award is based on two (2) factors: (i) Lowest Price and (ii) Technical Acceptability. Technical Acceptability evaluation will consider project execution plan, technical experience and past performance as non-price sub-factors.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes and none were noted. Per Section M.1(b) of the solicitation, the prices proposed for the base bid were evaluated for fairness and reasonableness by comparison against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and by comparison against the average or mean of the prices proposed by all of the offerors. Using this criteria, a spreadsheet listing all of the offerors’ proposed prices for the base bid was prepared for the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) (Tab 42). The identity of the offerors was not revealed on the spreadsheet, but each offeror’s proposal was assigned an alphabetical letter (A and B), and listed in order of the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A, proposed the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A’s base bid was found to be fair and reasonable as it was only % above the IGE and % below the average or mean price of all the other proposals.

Since Offeror A’s price was the lowest fair and reasonable price, their technical information was forwarded to the SSET technical evaluators for review.

D. Evaluation of Non-Price Sub-Factors of Lowest Fair and Reasonable Priced Offeror

The technical (non-price) documentation of the offeror with the lowest evaluated price was then given to the technical evaluators who assessed the lowest priced offeror’s project execution plan, technical experience and past performance as required by the solicitation. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Sub-Factor 1 – Project Execution Plan

The Government first evaluated the lowest price offeror’s (Offeror A) project execution plan against the following standards listed in Section M.1.(c).(1):

The Government will assess the Project Execution Plan to determine if sufficient pre-planning has occurred, quick turnaround items have been identified, and a clear understanding of the project requirements is demonstrated.

Failure to provide a Project Execution Plan demonstrating a sound technical approach for ensuring successful completion of the project on schedule, to include ordering of air handling units, delivery of air handling units, selective demolition of existing air handlers, and completion of mechanical, fire alarm/protection, and electrical connections of new air handling units and ready for use not later than 250 calendar days after NTP, will result in an ‘UNACCEPTABLE” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

The evaluation of the Offeror A’s Project Execution Plan is as follows:

Offeror A’s Project Execution Plan has sufficient pre-planning, identified quick turnaround items, and has demonstrated a clear understanding of the project requirements. Offeror A’s Project Execution Plans also demonstrates a sound technical approach for ensuring successfull completion of the project on schedule. The Project Execution Plan includes the ordering of air handling units, delivery of air handling units, selective demolition of existing air handlers, and completion of mechanical, fire alarm/protection, and electrical connections of new air handling units for use not later than 250 calendar days after NTP.

II. Sub-Factor 2 – Technical Experience

The Government evaluated the lowest price offeror’s (Offeror A) Technical Experience.

Offeror A’s Technical Experience Summary included the following three (3) projects:

(1) Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) and PCC Mods, Phase 3, Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Completed June 30, 2017 for $5,969,897.00)

(2) HVAC Upgrades LC 39 Launch Equipment Shop and O&C Bldg., Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Completed November 29, 2017 for $4,103,139.00)

(3) AHU Upgrades at Booster Fabrication Facility (BFF), Kennedy Space Center, FL.

(Completed February 19, 2015 for $1,087,000.00)

The Government evaluated Offeror A’s technical experience against the following standards listed in Section M.1(c)(2) of the solicitation. Offerors must meet all of the standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this sub-factor:

(1) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must be in progress with at least 50% of the construction work completed or have been successfully completed within five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation October 19, 2017.

(2) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been individually valued at or over $500,000.

(3) The projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must collectively demonstrate experience in installation and selective demolition of relevant chilled water HVAC mechanical equipment, control system instrumentation, and structural members.

(4) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been involved with preparing detailed and accurate computer generated shop drawings and as-built documentation.

(5) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must collectively demonstrate experience working with large complex chilled water HVAC air handling unit systems, VFD controls, and fire alarm/protection subsystems, as well as proper calibration, testing, balancing, commissioning of HVAC systems and their controls, and performance verification testing.

(6) At least one of the three projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary Experience must have involved preparing and executing clean room (100k class) or more stringent cleanliness plans for industrial chilled water HVAC air handling unit installations and related equipment/devices. The cleanroom standard is U.S. FED-STD-209E Class 100,000 (100k class) or equivalent. Equivalent may be ISO 14644-1 ISO8.

The evaluation of Offeror A’s Technical Experience Summary is as follows:

(1) Two of the projects submitted were successfully completed and one is more than 50% complete within 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation October 19, 2017.

(2) All three projects listed in the Contractor’s Technical Experience Summary were valued at or over $500K.

(3) All three projects collectively demonstrated experience in the installation and selective demolition of relevant chilled water HVAC mechanical equipment, control system instrumentation, and structural members.

(4) All of the Offeror’s contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary were involved with preparing detailed and accurate computer generated shop drawings and as-built documentation.

(5) All of the Offeror’s contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary collectively demonstrated experience working with large complex chilled water HVAC air handling unit systems, VFD controls, and fire alarm/protection subsystems, as well as proper calibration, testing, balancing, commissioning of HVAC systems and their controls, and performance verification testing.

(6) One of the projects (Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) and PCC Mods, Phase 3) listed in the Technical Experience Summary involves preparing and executing clean room (100k class) or more stringent cleanliness plans for industrial chilled water HVAC air handling unit installation and related equipment/devices.

Offeror A met all of the of the technical experience sub-factors identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Technical Experience rating of “Acceptable”.

III. Sub-Factor 3 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) submitted by Offeror A’s Contracting Officers or customer contact equivalents identified in the Technical Experience Summary were evaluated. (This assessment of past performance information is separate from the contractor responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.) The Government evaluated Offeror A’s past performance against the following criteria listed in Section M.1(c)(3) of the solicitation:

(1) Providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Providing timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (unless customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) Creating and maintaining operational clean room work area (100k class) or more stringent cleanliness plans and effectively executing these plans on complex industrial chilled water HVAC air handling units and associated equipment (ducts, devices, controls, etc.) during delivery, installation, and start-up activities.

(6) Maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) Rates, Total Case Rates (TCR), Days Away From Work Injury Illness (DAFWII), and Experience Modification Ratings (EMR) for the previous three years.

(7) Reporting and taking corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely manner.

(8) Providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(9) Complying with Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(10) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns. (Applicable only to offerors who are large businesses).

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

“ACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

“UNACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

The Government received two completed NASA/KSC questionnaires and one CPAR’s evaluation for Offeror A as follows:

Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) and PCC Mods, Phase 3, KSC – All questions were answered. The ratings were all Very Good or Exceptional. The reviewer noted that “Sauer went above and beyond on the entire project, helping Hensel Phelps and the customer out of issue/problems that were not a part of their contract”. They also indicated that they would select them again and they are “currently trying to get them on other projects”.

HVAC Upgrades LC 39 Launch Equipment Shop and O&C Bldg., KSC – All questions were answered. The ratings were all Very Good or Exceptional. The reviewer made no specific comments, however, they did indicate that they would select them again.

AHU Upgrades at Booster Fabrication Facility (BFF), KSC – The reviewer provided the Offeror’s current CPARs in lieu of answering the PPQ. The reviewer rated Offeror A as either Exceptional or Very Good in all the applicable categories. The reviewer provided several comments, all positive. Specifically, they stated “The contractor did an excellent job in removing and installing all the 12 AHUs through a set of double 3’0” doors on the second level in very tight spaces” and “The contractor worked with the Government to resolve problems. Good contractor to work with”. The reviewer also indicated that they would utilize this contractor again.

The results of the past performance evaluations are provided as follows:

(1) Compliant with providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Compliant with providing timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Compliant with providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Compliant with providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule. Customer required changes caused the cost and/or schedule deviations.

(5) Compliant creating and maintaining operational clean room work area (100k class) or more stringent cleanliness plans and effectively executing these plans on complex industrial chilled water HVAC air handling units and associated equipment (ducts, devices, controls, etc.)

during delivery, installation, and start-up activities.

(6) Compliant maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) Rates, Total Case Rates (TCR), Days Away From Work Injury Illness (DAFWII), and Experience Modification Ratings (EMR) for the previous three years.

(7) Compliant reporting and taking corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely manner.

(8) Compliant providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(9) Compliant with Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(10) Compliant with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns.

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition. It demonstrates effective performance and is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Based on offeror A’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and therefore as per Section M of the solicitation Offeror A receives an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror A’s (Sauer Group, Inc.) price was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. Sauer Group, Inc.’s Project Execution Plan, Technical Experience and Past Performance were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be “Acceptable”.

Based on the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation the Government has determined the proposal submitted by Sauer Group, Inc. provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for the Replace Air Handling Units (AHUs), Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), Bid Package No. 5 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida project. Sauer Group, Inc. is awarded the Replace Air Handling Units (AHUs), Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), Bid Package No. 5 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida contract for $905,924.00 (Task 1 - $887.124.00 and Additive 1 - $18,800.00).

Contracting Officer

Source Selection Authority