Addendum to 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION, AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation for the Ft Peck and Oahe Generator Step Up (GSU) Transformer Supply is a “Best Value-Tradeoff”

Unrestricted Request for Proposals. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria herein and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the

Government.

All Offerors, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM).

There will be no public opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S.

Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the original will be retained for the official contract file. Electronic copies of the awardees’ proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements.

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

Solicitation questions and/or comments must be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at:

https://www.projnet.org/projnet/. All Bidder Inquiries must be submitted no later than ten (10) calendar days before the proposal due date in order for inquiries to be given consideration or actions taken prior to the receipt of offers. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet.

The Bidder Inquiry system is to be used to ask and receive answers to all non-proprietary questions. In the event the Bidder Inquiry method is unavailable and issue resolution is unsuccessful, inquiries may be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist listed below. Inquiries considered proprietary by the prospective vendor may also be submitted via email.

Contract Specialist – Primary POC: Brandie Murphy

Brandie.L.Murphy@usace.army.mil

402-995-2332 (Telephone)

To submit and review Bidder Inquiries, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key and instructions listed below. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via ProjNet email notification after an answer to the comment/question has been processed by our technical team.

Solicitation Number is: W9128F25RA053

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: Z2AYD3-UKYT4Z

a. Registration for ProjNet Bidder Inquiry Access

If you are already registered, go to Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System below.

mailto:Brandie.L.Murphy@usace.army.mil

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask

` you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

b. Entering Bidder Inquiries in ProjNet Bidder Inquiry System

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret

Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

8. Follow online screen instructions to enter specific bidder inquiries for the project.

c. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and review the Bidder Inquiry

System or answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

d. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.

4. FORMAT SIZE OF SUBMISSIONS

All portions (other than an organization chart, Gantt charts or drawings (if provided)) shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format.

5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via email directly to:

Contracting Officer- Marc Proietto: Marc.Proietto@usace.army.mil mailto:Marc.Proietto@usace.army.mil

Contract Specialist – Brandie Murphy: Brandie.L.Murphy@usace.army.mil

All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two (2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same email, if possible.

5.1 Proposal Submittals

Each submittal must contain Volume 1 and Volume 2 files named and structured as outlined below. Note the company name may be abbreviated.

5.1.1 Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information

FILE NAME: W9128F25RA053_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 1- Proposal Submittals

Location Description

Vol. 1. TAB A Factor 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Vol. 1. TAB B Factor 2 – WORK PLAN

Vol. 1. TAB C Factor 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1.2 Volume 2: Small Business Participation

FILE NAME: W9128F25RA053_Company Name_Volume_2_Small_Business_Participation

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Small Business Participation Requirements

Location Description

Vol. 2. Factor 4 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

5.1.3 Volume 3: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F25RA053_Company Name_Volume_3_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 3: Price Proposal Requirements mailto:Brandie.L.Murphy@usace.army.mil

Location Description

Vol. 3 TAB A Factor 5 - PRICE (Standard Form

1442, Proposal Data Sheet And

Contract Line Item Schedule)

Vol. 3 TAB B Required Pre-Award Information

5.2 Late Submissions

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received “late”, in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are received via email by the Contract Specialist(s) will be the time and date the Government received the proposal.

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Electronic proposals shall be received by the USACE Contracting Activity no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

Offerors shall submit a proposal that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of these Specifications through the replacement, modification or refurbishment of components identified in 00 10 00, PRICING SCHEDULE, of this solicitation.

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

8.1 Basis for Evaluation

All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation.

Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a deficiency. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected Offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision.

Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

If, after award, the key personnel or subcontractors identified in the proposal are replaced, replacement personnel or sub-contractors with similar skills and experience equal to those presented in the proposal shall be presented to the

Contracting Officer for approval. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or subcontractors.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact provided by the Offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors related to the information provided.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. Volume 1, Factor 1 will be a rated IAW paragraph 8.4 of this section, and Factors 2 and 3 will be rated using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment. Volume 3 (Factor 5 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through

3. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated to determine ratings supported by narratives, and to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposed approach in each proposal.

8.2. Evaluation Definitions

8.2.1. Strength

A substantive aspect, attribute, or specific item in the proposal that exceeds the solicitation requirements and enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

8.2.2. Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

8.2.3. Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

8.2.4. Significant Weakness

A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

8.2.5. Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

8.2.6. Omission

A failure to provide information required by the solicitation and depending on the nature and extent of the omission it may be evaluated as a weakness, a significant weakness or a deficiency.

8.2.7. Clarification

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award without discussions is anticipated, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

8.2.8. Communications

Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

8.2.9. Discussions

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are tailored to each Offeror's proposal and shall be conducted by the Contracting

Officer with each Offeror within the competitive range.

8.3 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

The application of a scale of colors and adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. Ratings will be applied at the factor and subfactor level, as appropriate for this solicitation. If, at any factor or subfactor level, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of “Marginal”), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and at the factor level. Therefore, an unacceptable rating at any level may be carried to the factor level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 2 and 3:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

8.4 Past Performance Rating

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluations result in two (2) ratings: relevancy and overall confidence. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in construction activities that are needed to meet the contract’s requirements. The Past Performance factor submission requirements and the method that the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance is detailed in

Factor 1 -Past Performance description below.

There are three (3) aspects to past performance: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality

(including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). While relevancy is also evaluated individually, all past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the

Past Performance factor.

As an example of a past performance rating, a proposal evaluated as meeting the solicitation past performance criteria may be assessed ratings of “Relevant” and “Satisfactory Confidence.”

8.4.1. Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. With respect to recency, more recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than less recently completed projects. Recency criteria related to this solicitation is outlined in the Past Performance Submission Requirements section.

8.4.2. Relevancy

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy aspect focuses on evaluating the applicability of the Offeror’s previous work in relation to the solicitation requirements. Consideration shall be given to the features of an Offeror’s contract history that best demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the current procurement requirements. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

8.4.3. Quality

The third past performance aspect is quality. The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Offeror will be rated on its own performance. The Government may ask for Owners/References.

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government’s discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the

Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management

Agency.

8.4.4. Performance Confidence Assessment

A final performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The

Government will review the past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance." On the recommendation of the Source

Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or

“Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is rated more favorably than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the factors listed below will be basis for award. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: Volume 1 and 2 Factor levels of importance are noted below. Volume 3 (Price) is significantly less important to all of the combined Factor elements contained in volumes 1 and 2.

Basis for Award – See table below for relative importance of selection factors.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor/ Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1. TAB A TECHNICAL APPROACH Equally important to Factor 2, Work Plan

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B WORK PLAN Equally important to Factor 1, Technical Approach

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C PAST PERFORMANCE Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3.

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 4 Vol. 2 SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Less important than Factors 1-3

VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 5 Vol. 3 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And

Contract Line Item Schedule)

Least Important Factor. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than Price.

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 3 - Price will be evaluated in accordance the requirements listed in Volume 3, Factor 5 - PRICE.

9.1. Volume 1 - Proposal Requirements and Submission

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 1 file containing the following factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Work Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance

9.2. Volume 2 – Small Business Participation

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 2 file containing the following factors:

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

9.3. Volume 3 - Price and Pro Forma Information

In the Volume 3 file, Offerors shall submit their price proposal along with the other information requested in Vol 3 -

Price Submission Requirements.

Volume 3 shall include a cover letter stating that the proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation. A proposal that does not comply with all terms, conditions, and specifications in the solicitation will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

Volume 3 shall contain the Solicitation/Contract Form and Pricing Schedule (Section 00 10 00), Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Section 00 45 00), Pre-Award Survey Information and Small

Business Information.

Please Note: The Government will not pay for the provision of any information nor compensate any Offeror for the development of the required information outlined in the solicitation required for inclusion in the Offeror’s proposal.

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of the proposal) shall be incorporated by reference.

Note: Offerors that do not want the data submitted below disclosed by the Government must follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMPETETIVE ACQUISITION. Please note, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

10. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

10.1. Submission Requirements

This factor evaluates several key equipment requirements of the specifications that the Government will evaluate for minimum requirements. These items include:

- Outline drawings and descriptive data (for each transformer design)

- Nameplate drawings (for each transformer design)

- Transformer delivery schedule

- Factory ISO-9001 certification

- Transformer maximum total weight and oil volume (for each transformer design)

- Transformer guaranteed audible sound level (for each transformer design)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – These items include:

a. Outline drawings and descriptive data (for each transformer design)

- Nameplate drawings (for each transformer design)

- Transformer delivery schedule

- Factory ISO-9001 certification

- Transformer guaranteed load & no-load losses (for each transformer design)

- Transformer maximum total weight and oil volume (for each transformer design)

- Transformer guaranteed audible sound level (for each transformer design) The following are the submission requirements for this Factor.

I . Drawings and Descriptive Data

A. Submission Information for the 103,000 kVA, 115 kV Grd. Y high-voltage, 13.8 kV delta low-voltage, cooling class OFAF, three-phase GSU power transformer and the 68,667 kVA, 230/132.79 kV high-voltage, 13.8 kV low-voltage, cooling class OFAF, single-phase GSU power transformers. Offeror shall provide a complete response to address each of the following items:

1. Name of the transformer manufacturer, and location of the manufacturing facility that meets the Buy American and/or Trade Agreement Clauses.

2. The transformer nameplate data must indicate that the proposed transformer have the following ratings:

Oahe Three-phase transformer:

a. Three-Phase

b. 60 Hz

c. 103,000 kVa

d. 115 kV Grd. Y winding (H); 13.8 kV Delta winding (X)

e. Class OFAF cooling

f. Percent impedance at the following kVA rating: 10.6% at 103,000 kVA

g. Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings of 550 kV for the primary winding (H), 110 kV for the secondary winding (X), 150 kV for the high-voltage neutral winding (H0).

h. The winding diagram must indicate the location of the required winding taps.

Oahe Single-phase transformer:

a. Single-phase

b. 60Hz

c. 68,667 kVa

d. 230/132.79 kV Grd. Y winding (H); 13.8 kV Delta winding (X)

e. Class OFAF cooling

f. Percent impedance at the following kVA rating: 13.5% at 68,677 kVA

g. Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings of 900 kV for the primary winding (H), 110 kV for the secondary winding (X), 150 kV for the high-voltage neutral winding (H0).

h. The winding diagram must indicate the location of the required winding taps.

3. A sketch or drawing of each transformer design which the offeror proposes to furnish, showing outline dimensions, location of bushings, control cabinet, coolers and general appearance. Each transformer sketch or drawing must be designed around the contract drawings to assure conformance with existing site conditions.

4. Description of core construction and proposed lamination grade.

5. Description of oil preservation equipment proposed.

6. Quantity of oil required for each transformer design.

7. Total weight for each transformer design, fully assembled and oil-filled.

B. Submission Information for the 42,000/56,000 kVA 230 kV Grd. Y high-voltage, 13.8 kV delta low-voltage, cooling class OFAF, three-phase GSU power transformer. Offeror shall provide a complete response to address each of the following items:

1. Name of the transformer manufacturer, and location of the manufacturing facility.

2. The transformer nameplate data must indicate that the proposed transformer has the following ratings:

Ft Peck:

a. Three-phase

b. 60 Hz

c. 42,000/56,000 kVA

d. 230 kV Grd. Y winding (H); 13.8 kV Delta winding (X)

e. Class ONAN/ONAF cooling

f. Percent impedance at the following kVA rating: 11% at 42,000 kVA

g. Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings of 550 kV for the primary winding (H), 110 kV for the secondary winding (X), 150 kV for the high-voltage neutral winding (H0).

h. The winding diagram must indicate the location of the required winding taps.

3. A sketch or drawing of the transformer which the offeror proposes to furnish, showing outline dimensions, location of bushings, control cabinet, radiators, and general appearance. The transformer sketch or drawing must be designed around the contract drawings to assure conformance with existing site conditions.

4. Description of core construction and proposed lamination grade.

5. Description of oil preservation equipment proposed.

6. Quantity of oil required for the transformer design.

7. Total weight for the transformer design, fully assembled and oil-filled.

II. Quality Control

A. Submission Information - Provide documentation that demonstrates that the transformer manufacturing facility has current ISO 9001 Certification.

III. Audible Sound Level

A. Submission Information for the Oahe three-phase, 115 kV 103,000 kVA Transformer – Provide evidence that the audible sound level, when measured during the factor design test, is guaranteed not to exceed 70 dB at the 100% OFAF full-load rating with all cooling groups in operation.

B. Submission Information for the Oahe single-phase, 230 kV 68,667 kVA Transformer – Provide evidence that the audible sound level, when measured during the factor design test, is guaranteed not to exceed 70 dB at the 100% OFAF full-load rating with all cooling groups in operation.

11. FACTOR 2 – WORK PLAN

This factor evaluates the offeror's understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outline all major work necessary to complete those tasks. Offeror shall provide a work plan separated into two subfactors; Subfactor 1 Fabrication Work Plan and Subfactor 2 Schedule. The SSEB will evaluate the Offeror's Work

Plan based submission of these two sections.

11.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for this project, for evaluation purposes only, to verify Offeror’s experience in understanding project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, offsite fabrication, key milestones and contract required schedule constraints.

For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use an arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of October 01, 2025. The PMP shall be limited to no more than 50 pages; therefore, any content beyond page

50 will not be evaluated.

The PMP should include an explanation of the management approach for the design/construction team, clearly showing how the prime contractor will manage the construction of the project to ensure a well-coordinated quality product, completed on time and with a minimum amount of contract modifications. The management approach should include an organizational chart and address the interaction between the designers, construction prime and subcontractors during the design phase and construction phases of the project, including controls and revisions to the accepted design, requests for information, and shop drawings/submittal reviews.

The Draft Project Schedule shall be a high-level schedule demonstrating the Offeror's understanding of the requirements in this solicitation. It shall include the completion of all base-bid items of work and depict nodes and activities necessary to complete the transformer supply specifications and correspond to the offeror's discussion of critical path and assumptions.

1) The schedule is to include duration and logic for each activity to provide an overall delivery schedule from

Contract Award to Site Assembly and Final Inspection.

2) The following phases or specific tasks must be represented on the schedule:

• Contract Award

• Submittals

• USAGE Review/Approval of Submittals

• Procurement

• Manufacturing

• Shipment

• Assembly

• Factory Testing

• Shipment/Transportation

• Site Receipt Inspections

• Site Assembly and Final Inspection

At a minimum, the PMP shall address the activities outlined below in the areas of Management Approach, Schedule

Constraints and Major Activities.

Management Approach:

a. Include any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation documents.

b. Organizational Chart

c. Sub-Contractor Management

d. Contract Close-out

Schedule Constraints:

a. Submittals submitted/approved within 120 calendar days after Notice To Proceed being issued.

b. Design drawings and install procedures completed and submitted 240 days prior to the start of and transformer fabrication.]

c. Work hours shall conform to solicitation constraints outlined in Section 01 12 00, FEDERAL HOLIDAYS

AND WORKING HOURS.

d. On-site work not requiring an outage can occur at any point after pre-construction submittal approval.

e. Government and commissioning contractor operational testing requires fourteen (14) calendar days.

Major Activities:

a. Submittals.

b. Design drawings.

c. Witness Inspections.

d. Delivery.

e. Commissioning.

11.2. Evaluation

Proposal must meet all the following minimum standards to receive an “acceptable” on this factor:

a. Management Approach, including any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation document.

b. Organizational Chart.

c. The submitted schedule complies with and includes all of the listed Schedule Constraints and identifies all of the listed Major Activities above.

The quality of the Offeror's PMP will be evaluated. A PMP that addresses all requested items in a thorough and comprehensive manner as well as demonstrates an effective plan for construction and project closeout within the project timelines may receive higher ratings. Feasible schedules that shorten outage durations may be rated more favorably.

12. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in industrial electrical supply similar in nature to this project. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing projects of this nature and magnitude.

12.1. Submission Requirements

12.1.1. Project Narratives

The Offeror should submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) narratives for projects completed or substantially complete within the past six (6) years that best illustrates the Offeror’s experience on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Each project narrative shall be no more than two (2) pages detailing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. Project narratives will include the following information:

a. Contract number and Offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specific role in the project.

b. Project name.

c. Project cost.

d. Project description must include:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating electrical industrial supply experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Date of completion.

v. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

vi. Point of Contact (POC) information for the customer, agency, or firm, including name, title, email, and telephone number.

If the past performance of a subcontractor is used to meet the minimum requirements, at least two (2) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate subcontractor past performance. A binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor must be included and contain the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and subcontracting entity.

If a binding Letter of Commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance

Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

A maximum of five (5) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than five projects, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress completed by the date that proposals are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents as “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% construction progress complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 50% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as the design, manufacture, and delivery of similar generator step-up

(GSU) transformer, performed as the prime contractor. At least one project must include a transformer design, manufacture, and delivery of a Class II transformer with a 100MVA and 230 kV rating or larger. If the offeror is not the manufacturer of the transformer, this project must be from the manufacturer subcontractor.

a. The total cost of one (1) of the projects must be valued at more than $1,000,000.00.

Contractor shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture agreement if offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture.

12.1.2. Performance Appraisals

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government’s discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the

Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management

Agency.

12.1.2.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS)

For projects constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by the respective Government or commercial entity. For each project that may be private industry work or other

Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with the Offeror’s firm. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the Client point of contact. (Do not submit a PPQ when a completed

CPARS evaluation is available). Offeror should explain any past performance resulting in significant cost and/or time growth.

The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CPARS records contained in the CPARS database. The

Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the

Offeror’s past performance. Firms are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from

CPARS at https://www.cpars.gov. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major Federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto CPARS will require the following:

All firms must have purchased and installed a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate. Firms without this certificate cannot access company information. Additional information about the PKI certificate is posted in red at the top, center portion, of the https://www.cpars.gov web page. The company DUNS number and Marketing Partner

Identification Number (MPIN) are needed to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by the company representative that registered the firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. If the company MPIN number is not known, contact the SAM help desk via the email link on the http://www.sam.gov help page. Please be aware, the help desk will only release the MPIN number to the company representative that originally registered the firm.

The two (2) additional ways to obtain a copy of CPARS evaluations are as follows: (1) Contact the Government point of contact for the project in question to request a copy of the evaluation, or (2) Apply for “Contractor

Corporate Senior Management Representative” access on the CPARS web site: http://www.cpars.gov. This access is issued to only one individual within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to the firm’s completed CPARS performance evaluations, the status of evaluations which have not yet been completed is also available. Logon information and access instructions will be emailed upon receipt of the application request.

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided.

The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to rectify problems identified in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested risk rejection or less favorable performance rating by the Government.

12.1.2.2 Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified for which no CPARS is available, a Past Performance Questionnaire, Form PPQ-0

(Attachment 1), shall be completed and submitted with the proposal.

Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of the proposed subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors past performance evaluation with the Offerors during any discussions. The https://www.cpars.gov/ https://www.cpars.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/

Government will verify/validate information on both prime and subcontractors that an Offeror provides in the proposal. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to contact each reference to: 1) obtain authorization to release the information identified in the past performance submission and 2) provide authorization to the references to release performance information to the Government.

12.2. Evaluation Method

In accordance with Paragraph 8.4 and the following criteria, the Government will evaluate the submitted Past

Performance information in the areas of recency, relevancy, and quality. Proposals not meeting the minimum three

(3) project submissions or failing to include the required project narratives for proposed subcontractors will be rated less favorably. No more than five (5) projects should be submitted. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated.

If an Offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture or a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience, the proposal may receive more weight under this sub-factor if it contains evidence of the Joint Venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects. If a binding Letter of Commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

12.2.1 Recency

For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially complete within the timeframe required in the Past Performance submission requirements. For the purpose of this solicitation, substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress complete or fully complete by the proposal submission due date. If an

Offeror submits a project that is identified as “substantially complete,” the Offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% complete. Where applicable, at the Government’s discretion, projects submitted without the required 50% completion explanation may not be evaluated.

12.2.2. Relevancy

Project submissions must collectively demonstrate past performance in each of the areas of work defined in

Paragraph 12.1.1. A submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered, but when combined, the submitted projects must address ALL of the required areas of work. Project submissions that do not meet the requirement to demonstrate the past performance of all areas of work may be rated less favorably.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that are similar in function, scope, complexity, dollar value, degree of subcontractor teaming, and clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to construct a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. In addition, projects constructed for the Federal Government will be rated more favorably. Projects performed as the prime contractor may be given higher ratings.

Projects that do not meet the similarity criteria identified in Paragraph 12.1 may be rated lower than those projects meeting the stated criteria. Further, such characteristics as size, complexity, number and types of trades employed, and whether the Federal Government was the customer may be indicative of similarity. Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than submissions containing all the information identified in the Paragraph

12.1.

12.2.3. Quality

The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects. The Contractors

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be queried to determine the past performance of the

Offeror’s for similar projects. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance and may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein. All aspects of an

Offeror's performance history will be considered, with greater weight given to projects similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to this project as well as, projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges, where the contractor employed innovative methods to successfully resolve problems.

Projects indicating less than satisfactory performance in the areas of workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work may be rated less favorably. Projects showing significant cost and time growth will be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount.

The Government places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation (CPARS, other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge). CPARS ratings will be given more weight than equivalent performance ratings for other types of evaluations. For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an

Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance." Omission of rating sheets will result in lower ratings for this factor. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation regarding the omission shall be provided.

12.2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment

Recency, relevancy, and quality past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant and recent past performance will typically be considered a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating. Evaluation of quality on more recent and relevant projects may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating.

13. FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) must complete and submit a Small Business Participation Proposal Worksheet (Attachment 2). Reference Paragraph “Utilization of

Small Business Concerns” below for additional small business information.

The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

Offerors who propose subcontracting that exceed the required 20% goal of total contract dollars (not subcontracting dollars) will receive a more favorable evaluation than Offerors that merely meet the goal. Offerors will be evaluated on their proposed utilization and participation of small business concerns as team members, subcontractors, and/or suppliers in the resulting contract. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on its commitments that small business concerns will have maximum subcontracting opportunities. Enforceable commitments to use small business concerns will receive more favorable evaluations than non-enforceable commitments. Offerors will be evaluated favorably if they provide assurances that small business clauses and terms are included in subcontracts.

14. FACTOR 5 – PRICE

14.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror should submit the following information in Volume 3 (Price).

14.1.1. Cover Letter

The Offeror shall submit a cover letter stating that their proposal/offer…