NNK16CA19C_-_Source_Select_State.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Safety and Reliability Upgrade, KSC Institutional Power Systems, Phase 2 of 4 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK16575643R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the installation of various safety and reliability upgrades to the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) institutional power systems at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project includes but is not limited to providing new protective relay settings, rehabilitating the Orsino substation industrial and inspection bus sections to include the refurbishment and replacement of steel members and medium-voltage air insulated bus elements, providing new high-impedance differential relays, the demolition / replacement of underground medium-voltage cable, low voltage wiring, communications cable, and control wiring systems and associated raceways.

B. A synopsis was published on the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPS) Notices on March 3, 2016. The solicitation was issued on April 4, 2016. Four (4) amendments were issued (Amendment 01, April 22, 2016, Amendment 02, May 5, 2016, Amendment 03, May 12, 2016 and Amendment 04, May 17, 2016). Past Performance Questionnaires and the proposals were received no later than May 18, 2016.

C. Three (3) offers were received: A. West Enterprise, Mil-Con Electrical Company, and Williams Electric Company. All offerors were checked against the Excluded Parties List System. None of the offerors appeared on the List. The lowest priced offeror was also checked against Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and there were no reports. The bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged all of the amendments. As is discussed below, the low bidder’s technical qualifications did not meet the solicitation’s requirements. Therefore, the second lowest bidder was checked against FAPIIS with no reports. Their bond was verified with no issues and they acknowledged all the amendments.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of James Miller (KSC–NEF20), James Nelson (KSC-NEF20), George Cole (KSC-SAE20), Joyce McDowell (KSC- OP000) and Randall A. Gumke (KSC –OP-ES-A). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is Sherry L. Gasaway.

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

A. Introduction:

This is a single award acquisition with award being made to the offeror deemed to be responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal offers the lowest price and is technically acceptable. The Government evaluated proposals in accordance with the solicitation and will award a contract without discussions.

B. Evaluation Factors

This acquisition is being procured under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Evaluation and selection for contract award is based on four factors: (i) Price (ii) Technical Experience (iii) Past Performance and (iv) Small Business Utilization.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes and none were noted. Per Section M.1(c) of the solicitation, the prices proposed for the base bid were evaluated for fairness and reasonableness by comparison against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and by comparison against the average or mean of the prices proposed by all of the offerors. The solicitation then provides that, “Prices determined to be unreasonably high or unreasonably low, when compared to the Government estimate and/or prices submitted by other offerors, will be considered unreasonable and will not be considered for award”. Using this criteria, a spreadsheet listing all of the offerors’ proposed prices for the base bid was prepared for the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET). The identity of the offerors was not revealed on the spreadsheet, but each offeror’s proposal was assigned an alphabetical letter (A through C), and listed in order of the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A, proposed the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A’s base bid was found to be fair and reasonable as it was % below the IGE and % below the average or mean price of all the other proposals.

Since Offeror A’s price was the lowest price, their technical information was forwarded to the SSET technical evaluators for review. As discussed in the other evaluations factors below, Offeror A’s technical proposal did not meet all the solicitation’s requirements.

Therefore, the Government evaluated the price of Offeror B.

Offeror B’s base bid price was % above the IGE and % above the average or mean price of all the other proposals. The price submitted by Offeror B is determined to be fair and reasonable when compared to the Government estimate and the other offerors’ prices.

D. Evaluation of Non-Price Factors of Lowest and Next Lowest Fair and Reasonable Priced Offeror

The technical (non-price) documentation of the offeror with the lowest evaluated price was given to the SSET technical evaluators who assessed the lowest priced offeror’s technical experience, past performance, and small business utilization as required by the solicitation. The SSET performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Factor 1 – Technical Experience

The Government first evaluated the lowest price offeror’s (Offeror A) Technical Experience.

Offeror A’s Technical Experience Summary included the following three (3) projects:

(1) Revitalize KSC High & Medium Voltage Electrical Distribution Systems, Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Completed February 2013 for $6,761,339)

(2) Industrial Area Feeder Upgrade, Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Completed January 2012 for $5,257,064)

(3) Repair Switch Station 37 and North Substation, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. (Completed May 2008 for $8,268,755)

The Government evaluated Offeror A’s technical experience against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation. Offerors must meet all of the standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

(1) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must be in progress with at least 50% of the construction work completed or have been successfully completed within seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation April 4, 2016.

(2) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been performed by the offeror as a prime contractor or major subcontractor and involved Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction. Collectively, contract/projects shall demonstrate experience in the electrical, structural steel, civil, and environmental aspects involving all of the following: (1) outdoor power substation structural steel mounted air-insulated bus distribution systems; (2) underground medium voltage cable and duct systems to 15 kV class; (2a) underground low voltage cable and duct systems to 600VAC class; (3) large power equipment installation to 15 kV class; (4) 600VAC, 3 phase, metal-clad double-ended switchgear; (5) work planning to eliminate or minimize outages at operational facilities; (6) demolition of electrical systems including hazardous material abatement and disposal procedures; (7) switchgear protection including the use of Schweitzer Engineering protective relay systems (8) switchgear controls using programmable logic controllers; (9) providing detailed engineering design services, shop drawings and as-built documentation including wiring diagrams, arrangement drawings, software documentation, power system analysis, coordination studies and relay settings; (10) providing arc-flash and job hazard analysis and the use of proper procedures and arc-flash/shock prevention protective equipment when performing electrical work.

(3) Two of the three contracts/projects listed in the Contractor’s Technical Experience Summary must have been individually valued at or over $3M, and one of the three projects valued at or over $1M.

(4) At least one of the Contractor’s contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been performed at an active and secure Government, or public/private electric utility facility.

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

(1) Only two of three projects submitted met the requirement of being at least 50% completed or successfully completed within seven (7) years.

The project “Repair Switch Station 37 and North Substation, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL” was completed May 2008. To be acceptable this project would have had to be completed after April 4, 2009. This project is 11 months beyond the required seven (7) year requirement. The Government contacted the customer identified in the technical information and verified that this project was indeed completed in May 2008.

(2) Collectively the projects demonstrated experience in the electrical, structural steel, civil, and environmental aspects involving all of the following: (1) outdoor power substation structural steel mounted air-insulated bus distribution systems; (2) underground medium voltage cable and duct systems to 15 kV class; (2a) underground low voltage cable and duct systems to 600VAC class; (3) large power equipment installation to 15 kV class; (4) 600VAC, 3 phase, metal-clad double-ended switchgear; (5) work planning to eliminate or minimize outages at operational facilities; (6) demolition of electrical systems including hazardous material abatement and disposal procedures; (7) switchgear protection including the use of Schweitzer Engineering protective relay systems (8) switchgear controls using programmable logic controllers; (9) providing detailed engineering design services, shop drawings and as-built documentation including wiring diagrams, arrangement drawings, software documentation, power system analysis, coordination studies and relay settings; (10) providing arc-flash and job hazard analysis and the use of proper procedures and arc-flash/shock prevention protective equipment when performing electrical work.

(3) Two of the projects listed in the Contractor’s Technical Experience Summary were valued at or over $3M, and all three projects were valued at or over $1M.

(4) One of the Contractor’s contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary was performed at an active and secure Government, or public/private electric utility facility.

Offeror A did not meet Technical Requirement (1) above therefore Offeror A received an Unacceptable rating for Factor 1 – Technical Experience.

In accordance with the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process, award will be made to the offeror who conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal meets the technically acceptable standard for the non-price factors and provides the lowest evaluated price. Offeror A received an Unacceptable rating in Factor 1- Technical Experience, therefore is ineligible for award. Further evaluation of offeror A’s Past Performance and Small Business Utilization Factors were not conducted in the following sections, as Offeror A is ineligible for award. Offeror B is the next lowest priced offeror and is further reviewed in this document.

The Government then evaluated the second lowest price offeror’s (Offeror B) Technical Experience.

Offeror B’s Technical Experience Summary included the following three (3) projects:

(1) NASA Revitalize Medium Voltage Electrical Distribution Systems Industrial and Payload Processing Areas, Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Completed April 2016 for $6,409,760)

(2) Marine Corps Logistics Base P3013 Circuit 20 West, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, (Completed April 2013 for $4,288,071)

(3) Marine Corps Logistics Base Circuit 20 Central, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, (Completed June 2014 for $4,020,308)

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

(1) All three projects submitted met the requirement of being at least 50% completed or successfully completed within seven (7) years.

(2) All of the contractor/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary were performed by the bidder as a prime contractor or major subcontractor and involved Power and Communication Line and Related Structures.

Collectively the projects demonstrated experience in the electrical, structural steel, civil, and environmental aspects involving all of the following: (1) outdoor power substation structural steel mounted air-insulated bus distribution systems; (2) underground medium voltage cable and duct systems to 15 kV class; (2a) underground low voltage cable and duct systems to 600VAC class; (3) large power equipment installation to 15 kV class; (4) 600VAC, 3 phase, metal-clad double-ended switchgear; (5) work planning to eliminate or minimize outages at operational facilities; (6) demolition of electrical systems including hazardous material abatement and disposal procedures; (7) switchgear protection including the use of Schweitzer Engineering protective relay systems (8) switchgear controls using programmable logic controllers; (9) providing detailed engineering design services, shop drawings and as-built documentation including wiring diagrams, arrangement drawings, software documentation, power system analysis, coordination studies and relay settings; (10) providing arc-flash and job hazard analysis and the use of proper procedures and arc-flash/shock prevention protective equipment when performing electrical work.

(3) Two of the three projects listed in the Contractor’s Technical Experience Summary were valued at or over $3M, and all three projects were valued at or over $1M.

(4) One of the Contractor’s contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary was performed at an active and secure Government, or public/private electric utility facility.

Offeror B met all of the of the technical experience factors identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Technical Experience rating of “Acceptable”.

II. Factor 2 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires submitted by Offeror B’s Contracting Officers or customer contact equivalents identified in the Technical Experience Summary were evaluated. (This assessment of past performance information is separate from the contractor responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.) The Government evaluated Offeror B’s past performance against the following criteria listed in Section M.1(b)(2) of the solicitation:

(1) Providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

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

(3) Providing quality and detailed engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation for electrical power systems and substations including point-to-point type wiring interconnection diagrams, arrangement diagrams and software documentation.

(4) Providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (unless customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) Demonstrating the ability to provide outdoor power substation structural steel mounted air-insulated bus systems, underground distribution systems, and large equipment installation to 15 kV class.

(6) Demonstrating the ability to provide, install, and test 480V/277VAC, 3phase, indoor/outdoor switchgear systems with PLC/relay switching controls.

(7) Demonstrating the ability to adequately plan and perform electrical demolition and installation work with minimum system down time to customer operations, whether governmental or public/private utility/industry.

(8) Demonstrating the ability to successfully validate, test and energize customized and complex power system equipment, up to 15KV AC class equipment, including the use of independent NETA testing.

(9) Demonstrating the ability to perform power system analysis, coordination studies, arc-flash studies and protective relay settings.

(10) Demonstrating the ability to provide job hazard and safety analysis, and properly apply and use shock and arc-flash protective equipment during construction work.

(11) Demonstrating the ability to resolve construction issues in a cost effective and technically acceptable manner.

(12) Demonstrating the ability to provide/install outdoor power transformers up to 1.5MVA, 3 phase, with 13.2KV primary and 480/277VAC secondary.

(13) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR), OSHA 300 Log and Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for the previous three years.

2. Maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement

3. Maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program.

4. Ability to analyze worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated.

5. Maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance.

6. Ability to understand and comply with safety requirements.

7. Maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected.

8. Ability to resolve safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner.

9. Ability to report, investigate, and take corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner.

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

(15) Complying with Davis-Bacon Act and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(16) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns. (Applicable only to offerors who are large businesses).

Past performance was evaluated using the following past performance confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

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 [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

To receive an “Acceptable” rating for past performance, the offeror must receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of Very High or High.

The Government received four completed NASA/KSC questionnaires for Offeror B as follows:

Revitalize Medium Voltage, KSC – All questions were answered. Five questions received Exceptional ratings and the rest rated either Very Good or N/A. The reviewer did note that under a couple of the N/A selections the contractor did some similar work, but didn’t state how well the work was performed. There were no additional comments provided, however, they did state that they would select them again.

P3013 Circuit 20, MCLB – All questions were answered. Two questions received Exceptional ratings and the rest rated either Very Good or N/A. The reviewer selected that they would utilize this contractor again and provided the following statement “A.

West Enterprise is the subcontractor on two of my current projects to replace the substations at the warehouses aboard MCLB Albany worth over $7 million combined.

They have proven to be an excellent choice as a Subcontractor on all of the projects that I have with them.”

Circuit 20 Central, MCLB – All questions were answered. They received 11 Very Good ratings with the rest either Satisfactory or N/A. The reviewer provided several comments, all positive. The reviewer selected that they would utilize this contractor again and provided the following statement “Contractor was proactive and professional with their work.”

Safety and Reliability Upgrade KSC Institutional Power Systems, Phase 1 of 4 – This project is still active with completion due in March 2018. All questions were answered.

Two questions received Exceptional ratings and rest rated either Very Good or N/A. All comments were positive in nature or explaining N/As. The reviewer stated that they would select this contractor again.

The results of the past performance evaluations are provided as follows:

(1) Compliant with providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Compliant with providing timely and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Compliant with providing quality and detailed engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation for electrical power systems and substations including point-to-point type wiring interconnection diagrams, arrangement diagrams and software documentation.

(4) Compliant with providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule. Customer required changes caused the cost and/or schedule deviations.

(5) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to provide outdoor power substation structural steel mounted air-insulated bus systems, underground distribution systems, and large equipment installation to 15 kV class.

(6) Compliant with demonstrating ability to provide, install, and test 480V/277VAC, 3phase, indoor/outdoor switchgear systems with PLC/relay switching controls.

(7) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to adequately plan and perform electrical demolition and installation work with minimum system down time to customer operations, whether governmental or public/private utility/industry.

(8) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to successfully validate, test and energize customized and complex power system equipment, up to 15KV AC class equipment, including the use of independent NETA testing.

(9) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to perform power system analysis, coordination studies, arc-flash studies and protective relay settings.

(10) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to provide job hazard and safety analysis, and properly apply and use shock and arc-flash protective equipment during construction work.

(11) Compliant with demonstrating their ability to resolve construction issues in a cost effective and technically acceptable manner.

(12) Compliant with demonstrating the ability to provide/install outdoor power transformers up to 1.5MVA, 3 phase, with 13.2KV primary and 480/277VAC secondary.

(13) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Compliant with maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR), OSHA 300 Log and Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for the previous three years. Examination of Offeror A’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicated the company’s Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) and Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) were better than industry average. Offeror B’s Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for 2013 – 2015 are considered better than industry average standard / rates.

2. Compliant with maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement.

3. Compliant with maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program.

4. Compliant with analyzing worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated.

5. Compliant with maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance.

6. Compliant with understanding and complying with safety requirements.

7. Compliant with maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected.

8. Compliant with resolving safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner.

9. Compliant with reporting, investigating, and taking corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner.

(14) Compliant with providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(15) Compliant with Davis-Bacon Act and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(16) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns was not evaluated as Offeror B is a small business.

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, it demonstrates effective performance; and is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Based on the above, Offeror B received an overall past performance confidence rating of “High Level of Confidence” and per Section M of the solicitation Offeror B receives an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.

III. Factor 3 – Small Business Utilization

The Government evaluated Offeror B’s small business utilization against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(3) of the solicitation:

Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

(1) The large businesses’ Small Business Subcontracting Plan addresses all of the eleven (11) requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, paragraphs (d)(1) thru (11). (Applicable to only large business offerors)

(2) The rationale provided for any proposed subcontracting goal that is less than the Contracting Officer’s recommended goal includes an independent assessment of the small business opportunities and demonstrates a reasonable attempt was made to meet the Contracting Officer’s recommended small business subcontracting goals. (Applicable to both large and small business offerors)

(3) The offeror’s proposal demonstrates a reasonable commitment to the use of small business subcontractors. (Applicable to both large and small business offerors)

The evaluation of the Small Business Utilization is as follows:

(1) Offeror B is a Small Business and therefore this requirement does not apply.

(2) The Offeror has proposed to meet the recommended goals in all socioeconomic categories.

(3) The proposal demonstrates a commitment to the use of small business subcontractors and describes Small Business (SB) outreach, market research, and SB identification.

Offeror B met all of the of the Small Business Utilization standards identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Small Business Utilization rating of “Acceptable”.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror B (A. West Enterprise) price was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. A. West Enterprise’s Technical Experience, Past Performance, and Small Business Utilization were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be “Acceptable”. Based on the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation the Government has determined the proposal submitted by A. West Enterprise provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Safety and Reliability Upgrade, KSC Institutional Power Systems, Phase 2 of 4 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. A. West Enterprise is awarded the Safety and Reliability Upgrade, KSC Institutional Power Systems, Phase 2 of 4 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida contract for $6,692,458.00 (Base Bid Alt - $4,945,548.00 and Option 1 - $1,746,910.00).

Randall A. Gumke Contracting Officer

Sherry L. Gasaway Source Selection Authority