ACQR 5753952 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR.doc

Fire Alarm and Mass Notification Systems Buildings 10, 1425 & 7210

Naval Station, Great Lakes, IL Solicitation N40083-14-R-3229

35Kv North Branch

ACQR 5753952

Naval Station Great Lakes

Great Lakes, IL

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

REPLACE 35KV NORTH BRANCH SERVICE

NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKES, IL

CLIN 0001: Contractor shall supply all labor, materials, equipment, transportation and supervision necessary to design, construct and replace the existing 35kv North Branch underground electrical distribution system feeding buildings 322, 325, 328, 329, 510 and 520 with a new 12.47kv underground electrical distribution system. Project will include feeder cable installation and connections to new pad mounted transformers. Demolishing of the existing 35kv building feeds to the maximum extent possible and disposing of electrical components.

The buildings will remain open and occupied during this project. Construction activities cannot interfere with the continued operations and work activities of the facility. During the construction activities, ingress and egress from the occupied areas of the building shall be maintained.

The NAICS code for this requirement is 237130 with a Small Business Size Standard of $39.5M.

Reference the Statement of Work for complete project requirements.

1. POINT OF CONTACT

George Odorizzi, Contract Specialist

Phone: (847) 688-5395 extension 247 Fax: (847) 688-2517 E-mail: george.e.odorizzi@navy.mil

2. STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)/ PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (POP)

All work shall be accomplished in accordance with the statement of work (Attachment F), enclosure, and this Request for Proposal. All work shall be completed no later than 365 calendar days from date of award.

3. SITE VISIT

Due to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, site visits attendees will be required to wear self-provided personal protective equipment (PPE) and practice social distancing while on Naval Station Great Lakes property. Site visit will take place June 11, 2020 and be by appointment (to practice social distancing), with an overflow site visit the following day. Site visit is not required to submit proposal. Requirement for appointment is the total number of attendees with a recommended time slot between 0800 and 1300. Please email request for site visit to george.e.odorizzi@navy.mil and belinda.trout@navy.mil Offerors should be properly attired for conducting a site visit with appropriate safety gear for inspecting proposed areas. Due to security restrictions, photographs of work areas affected by this RFP will need prior approval and no work stations or Government personnel are to be photographed at any time.

4. PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES (PPIs) Inquiries and questions on this Request for Proposal shall be submitted electronically in writing to the Contract Specialist using the Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) form provided with this solicitation (Attachment C). Please ensure that the PPI form is sent as an Excel spreadsheet, not as a .pdf. All PPIs must be received no later than June 19, 2020 by 12:00 p.m. CT. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify that PPIs were received by the Government. Send electronically to george.e.odorizzi@navy.mil and belinda.trout@navy.mil

5. PROPOSAL DUE DATE & SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposal is due no later than July 10, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. CT. Electronic submission of proposals WILL be accepted. If electronic submission is used, the proposer shall distribute to the Contract Specialist ONLY at george.e.odorizzi@navy.mil. For mailed submittals, two (2) hardcopy proposals shall be mailed to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic

ATTN: George Odorizzi, Contract Specialist

310 Seabee Way, Building 1-H

Great Lakes, IL 60088

Hand deliveries will be accepted. It is the proposer’s responsibility to ensure timely submittal regardless of the means used to send the proposal. Naval Station Great Lakes is a secured gated facility.

If the offeror sends hard copy proposals, the package containing the proposals must be sealed. The outermost wrapper of all packages shall clearly identify the solicitation number, company name, and return address. Price proposal and technical proposal may be submitted in same package but must be in separate sealed envelopes, and technical proposal shall not contain any price information. The offeror is responsible for ensuring timely receipt of hard copy proposals at the time and place specified above. Late proposals will be rejected.

NO FACIMILIED PROPOSAL WILL BE ACCEPTED.

6. ESTIMATED COST RANGE

The estimated cost range for this project is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

In accordance with FAR 52.211-12, Liquidated Damages (LD’s) in the amount of $1,120.07 will be assessed for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

8. WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE DAVIS-BACON ACT

In accordance with FAR 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements issued by the Department of Labor will apply to the resultant award.

9. BONDING

In accordance with FAR 28.101-1, a bid guarantee shall be required whenever a performance and payment bond is required. The bid guarantee shall be 20% of the bid price or $3M, whichever is lower.

In accordance with FAR 52.228-15, Performance and Payment bonds equal to 100% of the awarded dollar value are required 15 days after date of award.

10. EVALUATION

In accordance with FAR 15.101, proposal evaluation will be based on providing the best value to the government.

EVALUATION FACTORS

a. PRICE

Offer Submittal Requirements:

(a) Price:

Offerors shall provide a Bid Guarantee, a Proposal Cover Sheet (Attachment D), Line Item Pricing Worksheet (Attachment E), signed Standard Form 1442 (SF1442) and signed amendments.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price of all line items. Proposals that provide prices greater than the budgetary amount may be rejected.

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

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

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the Government Estimate (GE).

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

EVALUATION

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range (if applicable); and to award the task order to the offeror submitting the proposal that represents the best value to the government.

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 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the SSEB determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition range can be conducted, the SSEB 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. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint.

3. The best Value, Trade off process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition.

The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that technical factors are equal to each other and when combined are equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (Factor 3 – Past Performance). The combined non-cost/price factors are approximately equal to price.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Safety

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as:

Size: A construction value between $500,000 to $4,000,000 with at least one (1) project over $2,000,000

Scope and Complexity: The construction of medium voltage underground electrical distribution systems in fully developed areas feeding multiple facilities with major construction elements including but not limited to concrete encased duct bank, medium voltage cables and terminations and pad mounted switchgear. At least one (1) project must also include the installation or replacement of pad-mounted service transformers.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture members. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.”

(2) Design Experience

Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as

Size: A construction value between $500,000 to $4,000,000 with at least one (1) project over $2,000,000.

Scope and Complexity: The design of medium voltage underground electrical distribution systems in fully developed areas feeding multiple facilities, performing coordination analysis, short circuit analysis of load flow analysis of medium voltage electrical distribution systems, programming medium voltage breakers and switches and phasing to limit the duration of service interruptions for occupied facilities. At least one (1) project must include experience performing building load analysis for the purpose of provided appropriately sized service transformers. At least one (1) project must also demonstrate experience developing design documents in accordance with FC 1-300-09N, Navy and Marine Corps Design Procedures

Projects submitted shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor. Offerors proposing multiple design firms should submit relevant project experience for all design firms. Failure to do so may result in a lower rating. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined."

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five projects for construction and five for design. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing relevant features of work may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self-performance.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, George Odorizzi, george.e.odorizzi@navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror’s team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.”

The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s team’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Past performance ratings of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” hold more value than a “Neutral Confidence” rating and will be considered more favorably in the evaluation of past performance.

Factor 4 – Safety

SAFETY

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work and the Offeror’s method for qualifying, evaluating, selecting all tiers of sub-contractors. The narrative shall include:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR); include three previous calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If there is no EMR premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the element.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates; submit three previous calendar years’ worth of data. If the OSHA DART and TRC rates cannot be submitted, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data negatively should be addressed as part of this element.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety should describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Fully describe the safety management system that will be used to oversee safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work. Also describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe the methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two pages.

Note: The narrative shall be limited to two pages. For a partnership or joint venture, the submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Safety narratives for joint ventures may be up to four pages in length.

(b) 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 its self-performed work and the work of its sub-contractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety management system, safety performance record, and the Offeror’s methodology of qualifying, evaluating, selecting and overseeing its subcontractors. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety will include, but are not limited to: OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS) database, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project and the specific management practices that will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support.

Offeror’s Experience Modification Rates (EMR) will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk

Very Low Risk

Less than 0.6

Low Risk

From 0.6 to less than 0.8

Moderate Risk

From 0.8 to 1.0

High Risk

Greater than 1.0 to 1.1

Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk

DART Rate Very Low Risk

Less Than 1.0

From 1.0 to 1.99

From 2.0 to 2.99

From 3.0 to 4.0

Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk

Less Than 2.49

From 2.5 to 3.49

From 3.5 to 4.49

From 4.5 to 5.99

Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0 Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include the following:

· Transformer Replacement: Describe solution for replacing the service transformers listed in the RFP. Also include methodology for performing building load analysis to determine appropriate size of new transformers for the current mission of each facility.

· New 12.47 KV Feeders: Describe solution for providing three-phase, 12.47 KV radial taps to the new transformers in concrete encased duct bank from existing substations and feeders Describe how optimum feeder routing path will be determined.

· Demolition: Describe solution for the demolishing the existing 34.5 KV building feeds to the maximum extent possible.

· Analysis and Programming: Describe solution for completing coordination analysis, shor t circuit analysis, and load flow analysis of the 34.5 KV and 12.47 KV electrical distribuition system on NSGL Mainside and for providing setting for and programming the 35 KV and 15 KV breakers and 15 KV switches.

· Utility Outages: Describe how construction will be phased to minimize interruptions to building electrical service.

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages (or six (6) single-sided pages). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings (if included) considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Experience Form

B. Past Performance Questionnaire

C. Pre-Proposal Inquiry Form

D. Proposal Cover Sheets

E. Line Item Pricing Sheet

F. Statement of Work

G. Drawings

H. Wage Determination

I. Electrical Equipment Disposal Scope

J. Transformers Removal 2019-11-07.xlsx

K. Switch Removal 2019-11-07.xlsx

L. ACQR 5753952 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE LIMITATIONS AS OUTLINED IN FAR 2.101 & 3.104 APPLY

PAGE