NNK17604588R_-_SSD_Redacted.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Revitalize KSC Water / Wastewater Systems, Phase 5 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK17604588R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the Revitalization of the KSC Water / Wastewater Systems, Phase 5 at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project includes the installation of replacement water mains and associated appurtenance throughout KSC. The work included in the request for proposal (RFP), as modified via amendment 01, included the base task of Replacing Water Mains and Associated Appurtenances at various locations; Option #: 1 Replace W1 Pump Station; Option #2:

Upgrade KARS Park 1 Water and Wastewater Systems; and Option #3: Install Water Meters, Various Locations.

B. A synopsis was published on Federal Business Opportunities website on September 22, 2016. The solicitation was issued on October 24, 2016. One amendment was issued on November 17, 2016 to make changes to the RFP and provide responses to pre-proposal inquiries. Past performance questionnaires and the proposals were to be received no later than November 22, 2016, 3PM EST.

C. Two offers were received from the following small business contractors:

In accordance with FAR 9.104-6 and FAR 9.404, internet inquiries in the System for Awards Management (SAMS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPISS) were performed. All offerors were found to be active and in good standing in the SAMS database and not listed for active or inactive exclusions.

No negative remarks were found in FAPISS. The offerors’ price proposals included fully executed SF 1442s; acknowledgement of the amendment; properly executed bid bonds;

and completion of Section K representations and certifications as required per the solicitation.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of

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 two factors: (i) Price and (ii) Non-Price. Technical Experience and Past Performance were evaluated under the Non-Price Factor.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Two price proposals were received by the government. 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 realism and reasonableness by comparison against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and by comparison against the prices proposed by all of the offerors. The solicitation then provides that, “Prices determined to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low, when compared to the Government estimate and/or prices submitted by other offerors, will be considered unreasonable or unrealistic and will not be considered for award”.

In accordance with FAR provision 52.217-4, Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award, it was determined that an exception under FAR 17.206 existed which would not allow the exercise of all options at the time of award. There is reasonable certainty that funds will not be available to allow the award of all options. It was determined by the contracting officer with the approval from the lead contracting officer of the Construction, Engineering and Project Support Office that only Option #2:

Upgrade KARS Park 1 Water and Wastewater Systems would be available for award.

The award of this option and Task 1 (base bid) fits within available funding and meets the most urgent program needs. Therefore only the prices for Task 1 (Base Bid): Replace Water Mains and Associated Appurtenances, Various Locations and Option #2: Upgrade KARS Park 1 Water and Wastewater Systems prices were evaluated.

As part of the price evaluation process, the Government created a spreadsheet ranking the total price of Task 1: Base Bid and Option #2 proposed by all offerors from lowest to highest. (The offerors’ names were removed and replaced with alphabetical letters A and B, with A being the lowest priced offeror and B being the highest priced offeror.)

Though Offeror A’s price was % lower than Offeror B’s price it was determined to be a realistic price as it was only % higher than the Government estimate. Offeror A’s price was determined to be reasonable and realistic when compared to the Government Estimate.

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

The technical (non-price) documentation of Offeror A was provided to the technical evaluators for assessment. The SSET performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Sub-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 five (5) projects:

(1) Project Title: Revitalize KSC Water/Wastewater Systems Phase 4A – NASA Causeway; Period of Performance: July 2014 to December 2016; Customer Entity: John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA; Location of Project: Kennedy Space Center, FL; Offeror’s Role: Prime; Dollar Value: $1,415,930.56.

(2) Project Title: Brevard County Barge Canal Force Main B-4-16-51; Period of Performance: January 2016 to November 2016; Location: Brevard County Barge Canal, FL; Offeror’s Role: Prime; Dollar Value: $589,450.

(3) Project Title: Repair/Construct Potable Water Lines, Area 59; Period of Performance: September 2009 to December 2011; Customer Entity: 45th Space Wing/Cape Canaveral AFS; Location of Project: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL; Offeror’s Role: Prime; Dollar Value: $1,143,891.

(4) Project Title: Remediation of American Creosote Works Superfund Site; Period of Performance: November 2011 to May 2015; Customer Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; Location of Project: Louisville, Mississippi;

Offeror’s Role: Prime; Dollar Value: $19,769,770.62.

(5) Project Title: Delta II Deactivation Facility Demolition; Period of Performance:

September 2012 to March 2014; Customer Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; Location of Project: Cape Canaveral AFS, FL; Offeror’s Role:

Prime; Dollar Value: $913,254.

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 five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation (October 24, 2016).

(2) At least two (2) of the contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been self-performed by the prime contractor and valued at or over $500,000.

(3) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved upgrades to water distribution systems or wastewater collection systems or water / wastewater pipeline construction.

(4) At least one (1) contract/project listed in the Technical Experience Summary shall demonstrate experience in horizontal directional drilling or jack and boring operations.

(5) The contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary shall collectively demonstrate experience demolishing and replacing water and wastewater systems components, demolishing an old pump station, installing a new booster pump station, and sewer lift station construction/upgrade.

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

(1) All five projects submitted met the requirement of being at least 50% completed or successfully completed within five years of issuance of the solicitation. Projects 3, 4, and 5 are completed. Project 1 is still in progress with 99% of the work completed and Project 2 will be completed by November 29, 2016.

(2) Four of the proposed projects are valued at over $500,000 and CORE self-performed all of the construction and installation work.

(3) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary involved upgrades to water distribution systems or wastewater collection systems or water / wastewater pipeline construction.

(4) Two contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary demonstrated experience in horizontal directional drilling or jack and boring operations: Project 1, Revitalize KSC Water/Wastewater Systems Phase 4A; and Project 2, Brevard County Barge Canal Force Main.

(5) The contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary collectively demonstrated experience demolishing and replacing water and wastewater systems components, demolishing an old pump station, installing a new booster pump station, and sewer lift station construction/upgrade. Project 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 demonstrated experience in demolishing and replacing wastewater system components. Project 4 demonstrated experience in demolition, repair, and replacement of wastewater system components, as well as installation of a booster pump station and construction of sewer lift stations. Project 5 demonstrated experience in demolishing an old pump station.

Offeror A met all of the technical requirements of the solicitation and, therefore, received an acceptable rating for Factor 1 – Technical Experience.

II. Sub-Factor 2 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires (PPQs) submitted by Offeror A’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 A’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 engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built 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) Providing quality construction services to upgrade water distribution systems or wastewater collection systems.

(6) Providing quality construction services for horizontal directional drilling or jack and boring operations.

(7) Providing quality construction services for upgrading and/or constructing pump stations and/or sewer lift station.

(8) 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

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

(10) Complying with Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

“ACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

“UNACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

(1) The Government received five completed NASA/KSC PPQs for Offeror A. The PPQs received for the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary received overall “Exceptional” ratings for Offeror A’s past performance. Responses to the PPQs resulted in sixty-four “Exceptional”, six “Very Good”, and five “N/A” ratings.

All projects were government contracts. The raters were all government representatives having direct involvement in the projects. The comments stated that the contractor personnel provided quality services, resources, performance, and deliverables, in a safe and timely manner. The offeror is very able to develop solutions to unforeseen field conditions. The offeror was able to provide quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation, all with no issues. The responses indicated that the offeror consistently completed work on time and within 10% of contract cost. The responses show that the offeror has provided quality construction services to upgrade and/or construct water distributions systems, wastewater collection systems, pump stations, and/or sewer lift stations. The responses also indicate the offeror has provided quality horizontal directional drilling operations and/or jack and boring operations. The raters consistently stated that safety was paramount and that the contractor had a proactive safety plan. Health and safety of employees is a top consideration of the offeror and their safety procedure uses a combination of regular meetings, briefings, hazard reviews, and training. The raters cited that the contractor paid employees, subcontractors, and suppliers on time without issues. There were no instances of violations or discrepancies with Department of Labor requirements. All raters stated that they would select the 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 engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Compliant with providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule.

(5) Compliant with providing quality construction services to upgrade water distribution systems or wastewater collection systems.

(6) Compliant with providing quality construction services for horizontal directional drilling or jack and boring operations

(7) Compliant with providing quality construction services for upgrading and/or constructing pump stations and/or sewer lift station

(8) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Compliant with maintaining acceptable DART, TCIR, OSHA 300 Logs and EMR rates for the previous three years. Examination of Offeror A’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicate Offeror A’s DART, TCIR, and EMR rates were better than industry averages.

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.

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

(10) Compliant with Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

Based on offeror A’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and therefore as per Section M of the solicitation Offeror A receives an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror A, CORE Engineering and Construction, Inc’s (CORE) prices were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be reasonable and realistic. CORE’s Non- Price factors of Technical Experience and Past Performance 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 CORE provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Revitalize KSC Water / Wastewater Systems, Phase 5 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. CORE is awarded the Revitalize KSC Water / Wastewater Systems, Phase 5 contract in the amount of $4,132,163.00 For CLIN 0001(Base Bid): Replace Water Mains and Associated Appurtenances, Various Locations and CLIN 0003 Option #2: Upgrade KARS Park 1 Water and Wastewater Systems.

Contract Specialist

Source Selection Authority