Enclosure 3 - Instructions to Offerors Final.pdf

Enclosure #3

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS & TABBING REQUIREMENTS

W912PM2RA006, Island Creek Switchyard Transformer Supply

This project is 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 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 and will be available on or about 25 September 2025.

The proposal due date will be specified in the solicitation when it is issued. 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 is a competitive acquisition to award a single construction 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 proposals are fair and reasonable and are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government in terms of price and non-price factors. Proposals will be evaluated based on Technical Approach, Past

Performance, and Price. 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 offeror.

The purpose of these instructions is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals and the development of the Best Value Decision using the Trade-Off Process (See FAR 15.101-1).

The proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the contract. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract as set forth in these instructions and requirements.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals in accordance with the RFP selection criteria described herein.

The basis of award is the tradeoff process set forth in FAR 15.101-1. 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.

In accordance with FAR 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 automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in

1. OVERVIEW.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

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 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 CAGE Code.

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. For

8(a) set- aside procurements, all prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 124.513. For HUBZone set- aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference in favor of qualified HUBZone SBCs as a

Joint Venture must comply with 13 CFR 126.616.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether an affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractor, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. 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.

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

2.4 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.5 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 a separate volume/file.

2.6 The Price and Technical Proposals in addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

2.7 No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical Proposal.

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.

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.

3.4 Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal and a Technical Proposal via email to troy.d.small@usace.army.mil and jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated. Both the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. 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 compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912PM26RA006_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912PM26RA006_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Offerors shall submit the proposals electronically via email to the Contracting Officer, Troy D. Small at troy.d.small@usace.army.mil and the contract specialist, Jenifer Garland at jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil .

Proposals are due as specified on the solicitation document (as amended if applicable). Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but the upload doesn’t complete until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their records.

3.5 The contractor is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT.

mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the Contractor shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the Contractor’s intent.

3.6 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.

3.7 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.

3.8 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

3.8.1 VOLUME I: One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted and one (1) original copy of the bid guarantee in both electronic and hardcopy shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Offerors Certifications, Factors 4 and

Small Business Participation Plan and Price

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Standard Form 1442

C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D Factor 4: Price

E Representations and Certifications

F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable)

G Small Business Participation Plan (If Applicable)

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) (2) and must be submitted by all offerors.

The format for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. The solicitation number;

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

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;

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

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.

See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number; fax number, e-mail address, Unique Entity ID (UEID) number and CAGE Code are all included. UEID number will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS database. If a separate UEID has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A UEID number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The offeror should also submit their

Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB B - Standard Form 1442, 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.

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.

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 00 10 00 - Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)

Schedule.

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

TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 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.

TAB G - Small Business Participation Plan if applicable, see Attachment 4, will be completed in its entirety by all offerors.

3.8.2 VOLUME II: Technical Proposal (Factors 1-2)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Technical Proposal (Factors 1, 2 & 3)

A Factor 1: Work Plan

B Factor 2: Technical Approach

C Factor 3: Past Performance

D Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan (If Applicable)

3.8.3 Further Description of TABs A & B and further information of Factors 1, 2 and 3 can be found in the subsequent sections (paragraphs 4-5) of this section entitled the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS &

EVALUATION STANDARDS.

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 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.

4.1.2 The narrative must address all the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.1. The total number of pages for the Work plan shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

4.1.2.1 Minimum Criteria:

a. 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:

i. For Major Features of Work, provide a summary level description of the Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors role in the manufacturing, assembling, and testing process for a

Class II Power transformer, as defined by IEEE stranded C57.12.00, with a minimum of

115 kV rating and larger.

ii. Provide a shipping and site assembly narrative.

iii. Provide a narrative for managing Major Subcontractors.

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

Site Assembly, Final Inspection and Testing. This 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.

i. 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.

ii. The following phases or specified 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.

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

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS

TAB A—FACTOR 1 – Work Plan

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1 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 also be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirement within the required schedule.

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

4.2.3 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.

5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS

TAB B—FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH.

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 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.

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

i. Proposed transformer outline: Plan View

ii. Proposed transformer outline: Segment One Elevation View

iii. Proposed transformer outline: Segment Two Elevation View

iv. Proposed transformer outline: Segment Three Elevation View

v. Proposed Transformer outline: Segment Four Elevation View

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

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

viii. 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.

b. Subfactor 2 – Efficiency: Offerors shall submit:

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

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

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

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

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 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.

5.2.2 Failure to submit the individual minimum requirements for the Technical Approach will be noted as a deficiency.

5.2.3 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.

6.1.1 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 3, on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed relevant in accordance with the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.1 and additional criteria in paragraph 5.1.1 before being evaluated for quality in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 8.2 and the evaluation standards set forth in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4.

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 3), which will provide contract and

6. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS

TAB B—FACTOR 3 – Past Performance.

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 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 6 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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.

The offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements identified on Attachment 3. Though not required, ideally project past performance information submitted under this factor would be on the same projects submitted for consideration under Factor 1 and Factor 2. 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.

6.1.2 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.

6.1.3 The past performance of individuals will not be considered under this factor.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 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.

6.2.2 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.

6.2.3 The Government will consider recent, relevant projects that are successfully completed and/or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil preceding the date of the solicitation. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with minimum criteria in paragraph 4.1.2.1 and 5.1.1. 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.

6.2.4 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, will be counted against the limit.

6.3 The Government will evaluate recent, relevant past performance (as set forth in paragraph 6.2) based on the elements listed below to assign a confidence rating in accordance with paragraph 8.3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 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.

7. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION.

7.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate small business participation by detailing its proposed approach to meet the requirements under the Small Business Participation factor by addressing the following areas in its Small Business

Participation Commitment Document:

a. Proposed Small Business Participation Plan in performance of the potential contract (applies to both

Other Than Small Businesses and Small Businesses)

a. Commitment to Small Business

i. Payment Procedures (applies to both Other Than Small Businesses and Small Businesses)

ii. Compliance with Small Business Subcontracting Plans (applies to Other Than Small Businesses only)

iii. The Offeror shall include a written statement of its established procedures to ensure timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns (for those contracts under which it was required within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If not required in any recent contracts, the Offeror shall so state.

iv. For Other than Small Businesses ONLY. Compliance with terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if required on recent contracts). The Other than Small Business

Offeror shall provide three Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) for recent contracts (within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation) that required a subcontracting plan. If not required in any recent contracts, the Offeror shall so state. If the Offeror has less than three recent contracts, the Offeror shall provide the most recent ISR for each contract it has, and state that the

Offeror does not have three recent contracts.

NOTE 1: 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 W912PM25RA004 shall not exceed 300 pages in total.

8. EVALUATION STANDARDS.

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.

8.1 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.

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.

8.2 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:

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.

8.3 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 only. Regardless of whether the offeror is a joint venture, partnership or if the Prime Contractor is part of informal teaming arrangement, as defined at

2.1 the government will only evaluate this factor for the legal entity whom the government would enter into a contract. 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 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 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.

8.4 Definitions

8.4.1 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. See FAR 15.001.

8.4.2 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.

8.4.3 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.

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

15.001.

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

8.5 Small Business Participation Factor. IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offeror’s identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated. Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) which specifies the offeror’s level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/participation in performance of this requirement.

An SBPCD is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Government will evaluate the following:

a. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

b. All prime offerors, including small businesses, submitting a proposal are required to meet or exceed the Minimum Quantitative Requirement(s) (MQRs) relative to the total contract value as follows:

Small Business (SB) 28.04%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 10.67%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 2.34 %

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 1.42%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 2.07%

For purposes of this requirement, total contract value is defined as total contract value is defined as the cumulative value of task order awards received that have opportunities to utilize small business concerns throughout the life of the contract. Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation (meet or exceed MQR) through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract.

The contractor shall report actual achievement of small business participation results on a quarterly basis and shall discuss performance in achieving the small business commitments/requirements.

Small Business Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

9. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

9.1 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.

Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan This Factor is the least important when compared to Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3 and Factor 4.

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.

10. EXCEPTIONS.

Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

11. RESTRICTIONS.

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.

12. PRICE.

12.1 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 in the Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)

Schedule.

12.2 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.

12.3 In accordance with FAR 52.217-5 – Evaluations of Options (Jul 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

13. BASIS FOR AWARD.

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

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

13.2 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.

13.3 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.

13.4 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.