B9 - Attachment 1 Instruction of Offerors and Evaluation Final.pdf

Attachment 1

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS & TABBING REQUIREMENTS

1. Overview:

These instructions define the criteria, organization, and policies to be used in awarding a contract to provide the design, manufacturing, testing and delivery of two outdoor Class II oil-filled three-phase transformers rated 5,000 kVA high-voltage (H)

4.16 kV low-voltage (x), Class ONAN cooling. An Operations and Maintenance manual shall be provided for all equipment. The switchers shall use sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas as dielectric and as an extinguishing medium and shall be fitted with the manufacturers standard grounding switch. The switchers shall include integral motor – operated disconnecting switch blades to open automatically upon overcurrent or fault trip. Include pedestals suitable for mounting the switches on concrete pads. Also, two each outdoor 5kV three – phase, manual – operated, single throw, gang operated metal – enclosed (ME) fusible load break switches, with inspection windows to permit observation of the switch position operation and hinged or removable panels to permit access to that switch for maintenance purposes, without disturbing the bus. The rating shall be 5kV rms maximum voltage, 60kV BIL, 1,200 amperes continuous current, and 40kA symmetrical short circuit amperes. The switch mechanism shall be provided with a lock mechanism or padlock provisions arranged so that the switch can be locked in the open or closed position.

This contract will be Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 335311 – Power, Distribution, and Specialty

Transformer Manufacturing and the small business size standard is 800 employees.

This solicitation will be issued in electronic format only. No additional media will be provided. Paper copies of this solicitation will not be available. Other methods of requesting a package will not be honored.

This solicitation is Unrestricted.

This will be a competitive acquisition to award a single supply contract where all offerors have a fair opportunity to compete for award. The Government’s intent is to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is fair and reasonable and is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government in terms of price and non-price factors. The basis of award is the Best Value-Tradeoff process, as authorized by FAR 15.101-1, therefore, the Government has the right to accept other than the lowest offer or other than the highest technically rated offer.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals in accordance with the selection criteria described herein. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Because this acquisition is conducted using the tradeoff source selection method, the Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The Government intends to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the RFP and represents the best overall value to the Government.

2. General Instructions:

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, offerors should submit their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or to submit a revised offer. The

Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the

Government.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1) and FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4), Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the

Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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.

2.1 Contractor Team Arrangements. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. As further described in paragraph 2.3, below, the Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Past performance of other team members will be evaluated only if the primary Contractor plans to submit their offer as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement or with significant contribution of subcontractors.

2.2 If applicable, the offeror shall submit evidence from the offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, past performance of other team members will be evaluated only if the primary contractor plans to submit their offer as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement or with significant contribution of subcontractors. Successor entities shall clearly demonstrate in Volume I, Tab A of their proposal the official legal means performed to transform the former Predecessor Company to its current Successor, legal business entity. Examples of substantive documentation may include but is not limited to Articles of Incorporation, Joint

Venture Agreements, Novation Agreements, and Merger Documentation. In connection with this contract, any in-house personnel, subcontractors, and outside associates or consultants will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified in the Contractor's accepted proposal. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer's written consent before making any substitution for these designated in-house personnel, subcontractors, associates, or consultants.

If the Contractor proposes a substitution, it shall submit the same type of information that was submitted in the accepted proposal to the Contracting Officer for evaluation and approval. The level of qualifications and experience submitted in the accepted proposal or that required by the Solicitation, whichever is greater, is the minimum standard for any substitution.

NOTE: The term "Successor" means an entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger).

NOTE2: The term ''successor'' does not include new offices/ divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to DOD Safe; http://safe.apps.mil/ . No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated.

2.5 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 8 of Form 1449.

2.6 Each offeror must submit both a price proposal and technical proposal, in addition to Past Performance Questionnaires. The Price

Proposal, Technical Proposal and Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted as separate volumes/files. Also, they must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

2.7 Be advised that the inclusion of any monetary figures from the Price Proposal within the Technical Proposal is strictly prohibited.

Any proposal found to contain such information could potentially be disqualified from further consideration.

2.8 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa.

2.9 Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the Price Proposal or the Technical Proposal.

Should the offeror include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to the specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

2.10 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein shall be submitted as part of the proposal.

http://safe.apps.mil/

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

3.1 Cover Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one Adobe

PDF file is used for a volume, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the

Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical proposal. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912PM25RA004_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912PM25RA004_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

3.4 The contractor is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the Contractor shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the Contractor’s intent.

3.5 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein and as described in these instructions shall be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP, and these instructions may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for award.

3.6 Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal.

Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

3.7 Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

3.7.1 VOLUME I: One electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Offerors Certifications, Factors 1 & 4

Small Business Participation Plan and Price

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Standard Form 1449

C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D Factor 4: Price

E Representations and Certifications

F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable)

G Financial Information and Bonding Capability

3.7.1.1 TAB A - A proposal cover sheet is required and in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2) shall include the following:

3.7.1.1.1 The solicitation number;

3.7.1.1.2 The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available).

3.7.1.1.3 A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

3.7.1.1.4 Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

and

3.7.1.1.5 Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

3.7.1.1.6 The Proposal Cover Sheet shall include a separate UEID if a joint venture (J-V) has been created.

A UEID number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement.

3.7.1.2 TAB B - Standard Form 1449, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

3.7.1.3 TAB C - If applicable - All amendments must be acknowledged by all offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102.

3.7.1.4 TAB D – Factor 4 - Price. Proposed price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors to include the

Subtotals and Totals section as found in Section B Supplies of Services or Prices.

3.7.1.5 TAB E – Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall include any narratives as it pertains to the requirement at 2.2 of the Source Selection Plan to document any teaming arrangement the offeror has or will enter into.

3.7.1.6 TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 of this Source Selection Plan. Note to

8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

3.7.1.7 TAB G - Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

3.7.2 VOLUME II: Technical Proposal

TAB Table of Contents of Technical Proposal (Factor 1 & 2)

A Factor 1: Work Plan

B Factor 2: Technical Approach

C Factor 3: Past Performance

3.7.2.1 TAB A—FACTOR 1 – Work Plan

3.7.2.1.1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.7.2.1.1.2 The offeror shall provide a written description of their understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outline all major work necessary to complete those tasks. To address

Factor 1, Offeror shall provide a work plan separated into two subfactors; Subfactor 1 Fabrication Work

Plan and Subfactor 2 Schedule.

3.7.2.1.1.3 The narrative must address all the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 3.7.2.1.2. The total number of pages for the Work plan shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

3.7.2.1.2 MINIMUM CRITERIA:

3.7.2.1.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Fabrication Work Plan. Provide a written description of the proposed project team along with an Organization Chart showing Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors. “Major Subcontractor” is defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. The fabrication work plan must include and/or address the technical content listed below:

3.7.2.1.2.1.1 For Major Features of Work, provide a summary level description of the Prime Contractor and

Major Subcontractor role in the manufacturing, assembling, and testing process for a Class II power transformer, as defined by IEEE standard C57.12.00, with a minimum of 115 kV rating and larger.

3.7.2.1.2.1.2 Provide a shipping and site assembly narrative.

3.7.2.1.2.1.3 Provide a narrative for managing Major Subcontractors.

3.7.2.1.2.2 Subfactor 2 – Schedule. Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to

Site Assembly, Final Inspection and Testing. This DRAFT 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. For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use Contract Award date plus the number of days to complete the milestones.

3.7.2.1.2.2.1 The schedule is to include duration and logic for each activity to provide an overall delivery schedule from Contract Award to Site Assembly, Final Inspection and Testing.

3.7.2.1.2.2.2 The following phases or specific tasks must be represented on the schedule: Contract Award, Submittals, USACE Review/Approval of Submittals, Procurement, Manufacturing, Shipment, Assembly, Factory Testing, Shipment/Transportation, Site Receipt Inspections, Site Assembly, Final

Inspection and Testing.

3.7.2.1.2.2.3 Clearly identify critical path activities, including long lead items.

3.7.2.1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.7.2.1.3.1 The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirement specified in the RFP.

Furthermore, the proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it complies with the plans and specifications. The proposal will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

3.7.2.1.3.2 Failure to submit the individual minimum requirements for FACTOR 1: Fabrication Work Plan will be noted as a deficiency.

3.7.2.1.3.3 Failure to provide clear and comprehensive detail related to any of the minimum requirements for the

Fabrication Work Plan may be noted as a significant weakness or weakness. A proposed Fabrication

Work Plan that merely provides a restatement of the solicitation or specification language will not fulfill the requirements of this source selection. The Fabrication Work Plan must provide information that demonstrates that the offeror understands the project requirements and has used that knowledge to develop a technical approach and schedule that is consistent with the project requirements.

3.7.2.2 TAB B—FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH.

3.7.2.2.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.7.2.2.1.1 This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirement, including drawings and data about the offeror’s proposed transformer. Offer shall provide technical information separated into two subfactors; Subfactor 1 Drawings and Descriptive Data and Subfactor 2 Efficiency.

3.7.2.2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Drawings and Descriptive Data: Offeror shall submit the following information.

- Proposed transformer outline: Plan View

- Proposed transformer outline: Segment One Elevation View

- Proposed transformer outline: Segment Two Elevation View

- Proposed transformer outline: Segment Three Elevation View

- Proposed transformer outline: Segment Four Elevation View

- Proposed transformer nameplate, including design impedance, and a winding diagram with taps.

- Submit a description of the proposed construction for the core, lamination thickness, high voltage coil construction, and low voltage coil construction.

- The proposed drawings submitted for this subfactor will only be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements in the drawings and specifications. These drawings will not be considered as the final approval drawings.

3.7.2.2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Efficiency: Offerors shall submit:

- Proposed no-load losses at 115 kV rated voltage and frequency, in kW.

- Proposed load losses at base ONAN rated kVA, 115 kV voltage, and 1.0 power factor, in kW.

- Proposed sound level at rated 115 kV voltage and frequency with all cooling groups in operation, in dB.

- The values submitted on this sheet shall become the manufacturer’s guarantees as tested during the factory acceptance tests.

3.7.2.2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.7.2.2.2.1 The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirement specified in the RFP. Furthermore, the proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it complies with the plans and specifications. . The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

3.7.2.2.3 Failure to submit the individual minimum requirements for the Technical Approach in paragraph 3.7.2.2.1.1.

will be noted as a deficiency.

3.7.2.2.4 Failure to provide clear and comprehensive detail related to any of the minimum requirements for the Technical

Approach may be noted as a significant weakness or weakness. A proposed Technical Approach that merely provides a restatement of the solicitation or specification language will not fulfill the requirements of this source selection. The Technical Approach submissions must provide information that demonstrates that the offeror understands the project requirements and has use that knowledge to develop a technical approach that is consistent with the project requirements.

3.7.2.3 TAB C—FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

3.7.2.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

3.7.2.3.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent, relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective.

The offeror should complete and provide a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), see

Attachment 4, on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects total, which demonstrate that they and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the elements listed in paragraph FACTOR 2 - Technical Approach. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed relevant in accordance with the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 3.7.2.4.3 before being evaluated for quality in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 4.2 and the evaluation standards set forth in paragraph 5.3. All the experiences required to be demonstrated for this factor need not have been performed on the same project, however the combination of all submitted projects must demonstrate that the offeror and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing the specified elements. Do not submit more than two projects for each element in response to this factor. If any offeror provides more than two projects for an element, only the first two projects submitted in order of submission will be evaluated. No additional consideration or evaluation will be given for the remaining submissions.

3.7.2.3.1.2 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 – Past

Performance for the Prime Contractor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ

(Attachment 4), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jenifer Garland (Contract

Specialist) and Troy D. Small (Contracting Officer) via email at jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil and troy.d.small@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. 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.

3.7.2.3.1.3 The projects submitted under this factor should demonstrate that they and/or their major subcontractors (if applicable) have experience accomplishing each of the elements.

3.7.2.3.1.4 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

3.7.2.3.1.5 The offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements identified on Attachment 4. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. To the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation, the Government will call and confirm with the points of contact, information provided by the offeror on the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil

3.7.2.3.1.6 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEID numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

3.7.2.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.7.2.4.1.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the offeror and submitted on the NAVFAC/USACE PPQs and any additional information received from references, CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to present an impact on the rating to be assessed.

3.7.2.4.1.2 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. Where the Government views an offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as a risk which may impact an offeror’s rating for this factor despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information. Past performance of other team members will be evaluated only if the primary Contractor plans to submit their offer as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement or with significant contribution of subcontractors.

3.7.2.4.1.3 The Government will consider recent, relevant projects that are successfully completed and/or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) within ten (10) years preceding the date of the solicitation. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with minimum criteria in paragraph 3.7.2.3.1.1 The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The

Government places higher value on projects for which successful performance can be validated by means other than the offeror’s self-assessment such as through independent telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references or personal knowledge. The Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the offeror used to resolve problems successfully.

3.7.2.4.1.4 Offerors are cautioned that the submission of each NAVFAC/USACE PPQ shall not exceed Seven (7) pages and that Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first seven pages. Offerors need not include the instruction pages but, if included, they will be counted against the limit.

3.7.2.4.1.5 The Government will evaluate recent, relevant past performance (as set forth in paragraph 4.3.1 of this

Source Selection Plan) based on the elements listed below to assign a confidence rating in accordance with paragraph 4.3.2 of this Source Selection Plan:

3.7.2.4.1.6 Quality of Construction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the offeror.

3.7.2.4.1.7 Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

3.7.2.4.1.8 Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

3.7.2.4.1.9 Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to effective management of subcontractors, suppliers and labor on past projects.

3.7.2.4.1.10 Cost. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s ability to perform within the contractually agreed price.

3.7.2.4.1.11 Safety. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

3.7.2.4.1.12 General. The Government will evaluate all general information and comments provided by previous clients with respect to the contractor’s efforts.

3.7.2.4.1.13 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 favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

4. Evaluation Standards:

4.1 Evaluation factors will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each factor rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each factor is evaluated an assessment of Performance Risk will be made.

Performance Risk relates to the assessment of an offeror's present and past work and accomplishments to determine the offeror's ability to successfully perform as required.

4.2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each evaluation factor and its risk rating combined will be determined and assigned using the adjectival descriptions contained herein. Upon assessment of each individual factor and its risk rating, the appropriate overall rating for the proposal will be assigned using these same adjectival descriptions. The following table provides Ratings and

Definitions for the Technical/Risk of Factor 1 – Work Plan and Factor 2 – Technical Approach.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

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

4.3 In performing the Factor 3 - Past Performance evaluation, the government will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors in accordance with the Army Source Selection

Supplement utilizing the following tables:

4.3.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

4.3.2 The Government will assign a confidence level to Factor 3 – Past Performance, in order to establish an overall rating for this factor. In assessing past performance, the ratings for relevancy, and the Evaluation Criteria as established at 6.2, will be considered for the Prime contractor and any in-house personnel, subcontractors, and outside associates or consultants and will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified in the Contractor's accepted proposal. The Confidence levels are defined as:

Adjectival 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

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 successfully perform the required

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.

4.3.3 Definitions

4.3.3.1 Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

4.3.3.2 Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.3.3.3 Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.3.3.4 Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4.3.3.5 Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

5. RELEVANT IMPORTANTS OF FACTORS:

5.1 NON-COST FACTORS

Factors Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Work Plan Equal to Factor 2

Factor 2 Technical Approach Equal to Factor 1

Factor 3 Past Performance Factor 3 is less important than

Factor 1 and Factor 2. When combined, Factors 1 and 2 are significantly more important than

Factor 3.

Factor 4 Price All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price.

In Factor 1, Work Plan, Subfactor 1 Fabrication Work Plan is equally important to Subfactor 2 Schedule. In Factor 2, Technical

Approach, Subfactor 1 Drawings and Descriptive Data is equally important to Subfactor 2 Efficiency.

6. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

6.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

6.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor as well as the overall rating. Comments are required for all ratings.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

6.3 The final overall rating along with ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which offeror, if any, will receive the contract award.

7. EXCEPTIONS

7.1 Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination that the proposal is actually a counteroffer and therefore the proposal may be rejected.

8. RESTRICTIONS.

8.1 Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation or for subsequent award.

9. PRICE.

9.1 Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Pricing Schedule shown at Section B – Supplies or Service Price in solicitation number W912PM-25-R-

A004.

9.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received for the contract. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Historical price information, competitive price information, the

Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool, as necessary, will be utilized in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

9.3 The total contract price, including the price for optional line items, is the evaluated price for making the best value decision.

10. BASIS FOR AWARD.

10.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include acceptability and responsibility.

10.2 In order to determine which proposal represents the best value, the SSA will assess each proposal to the source selection criteria listed in the RFP

10.3 The contract will be awarded to that successful offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value.

10.4 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

10.5 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s) or the most highly rated offeror(s).

The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

10.6 Offerors are reminded to include their best overall value terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal. The total number of Pages for Volume

I shall not exceed 150 Pages and Volume II shall not exceed 150 Pages. The offerors submission for Solicitation

W912PM25RA0004 shall not exceed 300 pages in total.