80KSC019C0012_SSDD,_Signed_for_FBO.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Replace Substation 1100 Switchgear at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 80KSC019R0014

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is to replace the switchgear in substation 1100 of the Logistics facility at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project consists of replacement of the existing service entrance switchgear with new switchgear with main-tie-main configuration and auto-transfer scheme. The switchgear main-tie-main devices shall be electrically operated and metered, and be connected to the existing KCCS for remote monitoring and control. Generators shall be provided to temporary back feed the entire Logistics facility during the replacement of the switchgear. A complete power system (short circuit and coordination) and hazard analysis (arc flash) for the entire Logistics facility is also part of the scope of this work.

B. A synopsis of the requirement was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website on February 6, 2019. The solicitation was issued on April 30, 2019. Three (3) amendments were issued (Amendment 0001, May 13, 2019; Amendment 0002, May 20, 2019; and Amendment 0003, May 29, 2019). The proposals were due by 2:00 PM EST on June 6, 2019.

C. Two timely offers were received: Military Construction Corporation, (MCC) and SES Construction and Fuel Services, LLC. (SES). Both 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 the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and there were no reports. Their bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged the amendments. (A third offer was received after the proposal due date and time from A. West Enterprise, LLC (A. West), and with the Legal Office’s concurrence, was determined to be “late” and was removed from consideration for award.)

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team-members (SSET) were Rafael Salas (KSC-NET70) and C. M.

Julius Williams (OP-CS). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is Sherry L. Gasaway (OP-CS).

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. The Technical Acceptability evaluation includes evaluation of the Project Execution Plan (PEP), technical experience, and past performance.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes, none were noted.

Per Section M.1(b) of the solicitation the Government established a proposal price ranking of both offers from lowest to highest, and the prices were evaluated by comparison against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and comparison against the mean of the prices proposed by both of the offerors.

Using this criteria, a spreadsheet listing both of the offerors’ proposed prices was prepared for the 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. Offeror A, proposed the lowest price. Offeror A’s bid was 10% below the IGCE and 2% below the mean price of all the proposals and determined to be fair and reasonable.

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 price was then given to the technical evaluator who assessed the lowest price offeror’s PEP, technical experience and past performance as required by the solicitation. The 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) PEP against the following standards listed in Section M.1.(c).(1):

The Government will assess the provided execution plan for completeness, practicality, and viability.

The review will assess the offeror’s understanding with the project’s technical requirements, as well as the offeror’s ability to translate those requirements into effective actions to complete the project with a high degree of quality within the required schedule constraints while ensuring the facility remains fully operational during construction. The Government will also evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s Execution Plan to determine if the offeror has planned adequately and exhibits sufficient preparedness to begin project execution immediately upon contract award.

Failure to provide a PEP demonstrating a sound technical approach for ensuring successful completion of the project on schedule, to include: procuring the necessary dune template fill material and having the material installed not later than 512 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 PEP is as follows:

The offeror’s Project Execution Plan demonstrated a sound technical approach for ensuring completion of the project on schedule. The plan included 1) a timeline showing the submittals arc-flash studies, fabrication, delivery and installation of the switchgear being installed not later than 243 calendar days after NTP. 2) A cut sheet of a proposed switchgear. 3) A quotation from a local distributor with the bill of materials, along with a construction plan to install the switchgear. The provided project execution plan timeline demonstrate that the offeror has an understanding of the project’s technical requirements. The provided Square-D switchboard meets the project specifications and drawings and will be tested prior to delivery and installation at KSC providing confidence that the facility will remain operational during construction. Additionally, the transition of panel boards from generator power to permanent power will be conducted after hours. The project execution plan provided by the offeror meets the solicitation Section M requirements.

Finding: Offeror A’s PEP rating is Acceptable.

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, KSC, FL. (Completed December 31, 2014 for

$439,697)

(2) Repair Upgrade Substation 117 and HIB at the SSPF, KSC, FL. (Completed February 4, 2015 for $1,768,352)

(3) Revitalize power systems VAB tower F/E SS811, KSC, FL. (Completed May 31, 2018 for

$1,272,910)

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 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation, April 30, 2019.

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

(3) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved the replacement of 480V switchgear.

(4) At least one of the contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been completed while the facility remained fully operational during construction.

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

(1) All three projects submitted were successfully completed within the past 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation, April 30, 2019.

(2) Two of the three projects listed in the Contractor’s Technical Experience Summary were valued at or over $500,000.00.

(3) All three projects involved the replacement of 480V switchgear.

(4) Two of the three projects submitted demonstrated the facilities remained fully operational during construction.

Summary: Collectively the three projects Offeror A identified in the technical experience summary meet the required evaluation criteria and clearly demonstrate technical capability to perform the contract requirements.

Findings: Offeror A’s Technical Experience rating is Acceptable.

III. Sub-Factor 3 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires 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:

(A) 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.

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

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

(D) Completing work within the required timeframe(s).

(E) The Contractor’s ability to maintain an operational facility while replacing the switchgear.

(F) 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.

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

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

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

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 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 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 evaluation of Offeror A’s Past Performance is as follows:

The Government received three (3) completed past performance questionnaires for Offeror A as follows: 1) Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility, 2) Repair/Upgrade SSPF Substation 117 and HIB, and 3) Revitalize power systems VAB tower F/E SS811.

The submitted past performance questionnaires were reviewed along with the OSHA 300 logs and EMR rating for the years 2016 through 2018.

The NASA Safety Office provided the following safety record input for MCC:

a. Examination of MCC’s OSHA 300 logs for years 2016 to 2018 indicate the company’s Days Away From Work Injury Illness (DAFWII), Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), and Total Case Incident Rate (TCR) are acceptable for a combined average.

b. MCC’s Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for 2015-2017 are acceptable.

Project 1: Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida – This evaluation was provided by the Prime Contractor. The reviewer noted very good project management and responsiveness, and demonstrated clear willingness to hire this contractor again without hesitation. Evaluation shows contractor provided a) very good project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner b) very good timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems, c) very good quality engineering drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation, d) exceptional in the ability to complete work within the timeframe, e) exceptional in the ability to maintain the facility operational during the replacing of the switchgear, f) very good in the ability to report and take corrective action on safety accidents/incidents in a timely manner, g) exceptional in the ability to provide prompt payments of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies, h) exceptional in the compliance with Department of Labor requirements.

Project 2: Repair Upgrade Substation 117 and HIB at the SSPF at Kennedy Space Center, Florida - This evaluation was provided by NASA. The reviewer noted very good project management and responsiveness, and demonstrated clear willingness to hire this contractor again without hesitation.

Evaluation shows contractor provided a) very good project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner, b) very good timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems, c) satisfactory quality engineering drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation , d) very good ability to complete work within the timeframe, e) the ability to maintain the facility operational during the replacing of the switchgear was not applicable,

f) the ability to report and take corrective action on safety accidents/incidents in a timely manner was not applicable, g) the ability to provide prompt payments of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies was not applicable, h) very good in compliance with Department of Labor requirements.

Project 3: Revitalize power systems VAB tower F/E SS811 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida – This evaluation was provided by NASA. The reviewer noted very good project management and responsiveness, and demonstrated clear willingness to hire this contractor again without hesitation.

Evaluation shows contractor provided a) very good project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner, b) very good timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems, c) satisfactory quality engineering drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation, d) very good in the ability to complete work within the timeframe,

e) satisfactory in the ability to maintain the facility operational during the replacing of the switchgear,

f) satisfactory in the ability to report and take corrective action on safety accidents/ incidents in a timely manner, g) satisfactory in the ability to provide prompt payments of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies, h) satisfactory in the compliance with Department of Labor requirements.

Finding: Offeror A’s Past Performance rating is Acceptable. Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror A’s (MCC) price was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. MCC’s PEP, 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 MCC provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement to replace the switchgear in substation 1100 of the Logistics facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. MCC is awarded the contract to replace the switchgear in substation 1100 of the Logistics facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida for $673,622.00.

C. M. Julius Williams Contracting Officer

Sherry L. Gasaway Source Selection Authority