RFP FA910123RB015.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST CENTER (AFMC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA

7 March 2023

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

FROM: AFTC/PZIA

Arnold Engineering Development Complex 100 Kindel Drive, Suite A332 Arnold AFB, TN 37389

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) FA910123RB015, PES Transformer #7 RCA

This is a full and open, competitive solicitation. The subject requirement is for a commercial product; as such, this solicitation is prepared in accordance with (IAW) the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This solicitation is not authorization to begin performance, and in no way obligates the Government for any costs incurred by the offeror associated with developing a proposal. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract in response to this RFP. Prior to commencement of any activities associated with performance of this requirement, the Government will issue a written directive or contractual document signed by the Contracting Officer with appropriate consideration established.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular, FAC 2023-01 dated 30 December 2022, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) Change 12/30/2022 effective 30 December 2022, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Change 12/20/2022 effective 20 December 2022.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 – Engineering Services, with a size standard of $25.5M. The Product Service Code (PSC) is B513, Special Studies/Analysis- Feasibility (Non-Construction).

The purpose of this solicitation is for the Government to obtain a Root Cause Analysis report that details the root cause for failure of a 161- kV, 192.258 MVA for 5 minutes, Brand-name Tamini transformer, (with 33-position on-load tap changer) Serial Number 66826, in accordance with Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW). There are four tasks associated with the required service: 1. Develop and deliver a Fault Data Report; 2.

Develop and deliver a Preliminary On-site Inspection and Testing Report; 3. Conduct an Internal Inspection;

and 4. Develop and deliver an Inspection, Analysis and Comprehensive Report. The anticipated Period of Performance (PoP) is 10 March 2023 – 10 May 2023.

Provided Below are the anticipated Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), Service Descriptions, Quantities, and Unit of Measure (UOM):

CLIN Service Description Quantity UOM 0001 Task 1 – Fault Data Report

IAW Attachment 1 – SOW 1 Each

0002 Task 2 - Preliminary On-site Inspection and Testing Report IAW Attachment 1 – SOW

1 Each

0003 Task 3 – Internal Inspection IAW Attachment 1 – SOW

1 Each

0004 Task 4 - Inspection, Analysis and Comprehensive Report IAW Attachment 1 – SOW

1 Each

0005 CDRLs 1 Each 1001 Supplies - Temporary Shelter IAW Approved Plan 1 LOT

NOTE: CLIN 1001 is an option CLIN. In accordance with FAR provision 52.217-3, Evaluation Exclusive of Options, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by including only the price for the basic requirement, i.e., options will not be included in the evaluation for award purposes.

*FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021) applies to this acquisition and the following addendum applies:

Paragraph (a) first sentence revised as follows: “The NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition appear above.”

Paragraph (c) first sentence revised as follows: “The vendor agrees to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the proposal.”

RFP due date: 9 March 2023 RFP due time: 10:00 A.M. Central Time Email to: brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil

Note: .zip files are not an acceptable format for the Air Force Network and will not go through our email system.

All questions regarding this RFP must be emailed to brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil no later than 1:00 P.M.

Central Time on 8 March 2023.

Offerors shall identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions with supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so with the proposal.

Alternate proposals will not be considered for contract award.

Please provide the following information with your proposal:

1. Completed “Offeror Certifications” (RFP Attachment 7). Offeror shall complete on company letterhead and shall be signed by an authorized company certifying official.

2. Resume for proposed independent TME meeting the experience/credentials listed below, or provide the following statement: “If offeror is selected for award, Government to propose independent TME, and offeror to provide confirmation to use Government proposed independent TME prior to contract award”.

Relevant experience/credentials are as follows:

a. Over 20 years working with liquid immersed power transformers rated 10 MVA and larger with voltage ratings of 15 kV thru 161 kV in an engineering and design role for a transformer manufacture.

b. Shop floor manufacturing, testing, and quality control technical supervisory experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

c. Field installation and testing technical supervisory experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

d. Forensic experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

e. Demonstrated active member of industry standards working group committees of IEEE and IEC.

f. Professional Engineer status in home state/country.

g. Design and manufacturing experience with rectifier transformers built to:

i. IEEE Std C57.18.10 “Standard Practices and Requirements for Semiconductor Power

Rectifier Transformers”

ii. IEC 61378 “Converter Transformers – Transformers for Industrial Applications”

iii. IEEE C57.12 series of transformer standards

iv. IEC 60076 transformer standards.

3. Completed “Project Schedule Worksheet” (RFP Attachment 2). Dates inserted into worksheet shall not exceed a total of two-months.

4. Completed “Demonstrated Past Performance” form (RFP Attachment 6) for no more than three projects that demonstrate past performance in performing the required work IAW Attachment 1 - SOW. The submitted projects shall meet the following minimum conditions:

a. Each project shall be similar (or greater) in size, scope, and complexity of this acquisition.

b. No project may be used more than once.

c. Each project submitted must be ongoing or have been completed within five‐years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

5. Completed “Pricing Worksheet” (RFP - Attachment 3). Offerors shall complete green-colored cells.

All companies must be registered in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ to be considered for award. The Government will not provide contract financing for this acquisition. Invoice instructions are provided in Attachment 3 – Provisions and Clauses.

Basis of Award:

A competitive simplified acquisition selection process will be conducted IAW FAR Part 13. Contracts awarded under FAR 13 are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, award of a contract under this RFP, should an award be made, shall follow the procedures outlined in FAR 13, as supplemented.

A. Contract award will be made IAW the procedures specified in this RFP, to the Offeror whose proposal results in the best value to the Government. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

B. The Government will conduct the award selection and evaluation process in two phases: Phase 1 and Phase

2. In Phase 1, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, will be evaluated. Proposals that receive an acceptable rating for Factor 1 in Phase 1 will be included in Phase 2 evaluations. In Phase 2, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price, will be evaluated. The Government will perform a comparative analysis in Phase 2 in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the RFP. The comparative analysis (comparing proposals to each other) will be based on the Offeror’s responses to Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3

– Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance of Factor 2 and Factor 3 is as follows: Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 - Price.

C. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each Offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the award selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this RFP.

Once the Government determines (through the comparative analysis) the Offeror that is best-suited to meet the stated requirements, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues, which may include technical or price. If interchanges with the best-suited Offeror do not result in contract award, the Government may conduct interchanges, which may include technical or price, with the next best-suited Offeror, based on the original analysis. This process will continue until a contract is awarded.

D. Evaluation Factors.

As discussed in Paragraph B above, the Government will conduct the award selection and evaluation process in two phases: Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Phase 1: In this phase, responses to this RFP will be evaluated against the following factor:

Factor 1 - Technical Approach

Under this factor, the Government will assign the factor an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Factor 1 Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets all measures of merit for Factor 1.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet all measures of merit for Factor 1.

For this factor, the Government will evaluate the proposal using the following measures of merit:

1. Offeror provided a completed “Offeror Certifications” (RFP Attachment 7) on company letterhead and is signed by the company’s authorized certifying official.

2. Offeror provided resume for proposed independent TME meeting the experience/credentials listed below, or provided the following statement: “If offeror is selected for award, Government to propose independent TME, and offeror to provide confirmation to use Government proposed independent TME prior to contract award”. Relevant experience/credentials are as follows:

a. Over 20 years working with liquid immersed power transformers rated 10 MVA and larger with voltage ratings of 15 kV thru 161 kV in an engineering and design role for a transformer manufacture.

b. Shop floor manufacturing, testing, and quality control technical supervisory experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

c. Field installation and testing technical supervisory experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

d. Forensic experience of transformers of liquid immersed transformers in the power and voltage range similar to this requirement.

e. Demonstrated active member of industry standards working group committees of IEEE and IEC.

f. Professional Engineer status in home state/country.

g. Design and manufacturing experience with rectifier transformers built to:

i. IEEE Std C57.18.10 “Standard Practices and Requirements for Semiconductor Power

Rectifier Transformers”

ii. IEC 61378 “Converter Transformers – Transformers for Industrial Applications”

iii. IEEE C57.12 series of transformer standards

iv. IEC 60076 transformer standards.

3. Offeror provided a completed “Project Schedule Worksheet” (RFP Attachment 2). Dates inserted into worksheet do not exceed a total of two-months.

Note: Proposal must be rated as technically acceptable to move to Phase 2 evaluation.

Phase 2: Proposals rated Acceptable in Phase 1 will be evaluated in Phase 2 against the following factors:

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 - Price

The Government will perform a comparative analysis (comparing proposals included in Phase 2 to one another) in order to select the Offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the RFP. The comparative analysis will be based on the Offeror’s responses to Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price, given their stated relative order of importance. The relative order of importance of Factor 2 and Factor 3 is as follows: Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 - Price.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of performing the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in performing services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government. All past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will be evaluated to determine relevancy and recency. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given one of the following ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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 involves 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 involves.

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

All past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will be evaluated to determine recency. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given a rating of Recent or Not Recent. The definitions of these ratings are as follows:

All recent and relevant past performance documentation, either provided by the contractor or obtained by the Contracting Officer, will also be evaluated to assess quality. Each project with past performance information obtained will be given one of the ratings defined below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

RECENT Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last five years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

NOT RECENT Not Recent is defined as performance occurring more than five years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

The Government will evaluate all of the ratings provided by all of the sources of past performance information to establish a confidence rating. Only past performance information with a rating of Recent will be utilized to establish this confidence rating. For Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance, a rating of Neutral will be given. A Neutral rating will be considered Satisfactory Confidence. The following ratings will be used in the performance confidence evaluation.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Description

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

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

No Confidence (NC) Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) (UC) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no

Quality Assessment Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

GOOD (G) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The performance confidence rating will be used for the comparative analysis.

Factor 3: Price

In accordance with FAR provision 52.217-3, Evaluation Exclusive of Options, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by including only the price for the basic requirement, i.e., options will not be included in the evaluation for award purposes.

Price proposals should be provided in Attachment 3 – Pricing Worksheet and should support the offeror’s proposed Factor 1 ‐ Technical Approach. Price proposals will be evaluated (but not rated). The Offeror’s Initial Total Evaluated Price (I‐TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the total price for each CLIN provided in Attachment 3 – Pricing Worksheet. After any interchanges, if necessary, the Government will evaluate the Final TEP (F‐TEP). If interchanges do not occur, the I‐TEP will become the F‐TEP. The F-TEP be evaluated in terms of completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing. Offerors whose F-TEP is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

Applicable definitions are outlined below:

Completeness - The Offeror’s F-TEP will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

Reasonableness - For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 13.106-3(a).

Unbalanced pricing - Contractors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

E. The projects submitted by the Offeror to meet Factor 2, Past Performance, and information obtained from sources available to the Government will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.

FAR Provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Alternate I) Dec 2022, applies to this acquisition. All vendors must be registered in System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ at the time of proposal submittal.

FAR clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022), applies to this acquisition with the following Addendum: Paragraph (c) of this clause is tailored as follows: Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties with the exception of administrative changes, such as changes in the paying office, appropriations data, etc., which may be changed unilaterally by the Government.

Note: The vendor acknowledges that should the proposal terms and conditions and/or agreement conflict with mandatory provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other Federal law applicable to commercial acquisitions, to the extent of such conflict the FAR and Federal law govern and conflicting vendor terms and conditions and/or agreement are unenforceable and are not considered incorporated into any resultant contract.

FAR clause 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022), is applicable to this acquisition. For the FAR clauses cited in FAR clause 52.212-5 that are applicable to this acquisition see Attachment 4 – Provisions and Clauses.

For additional FAR provisions and clauses not referenced specifically in this document that apply to this acquisition, see Attachment 4 – Provisions and Clauses. Likewise, for DFARS and AFFARS provisions and clauses that are applicable to this acquisition, see Attachment 4 – Provisions and Clauses. The full text of these clauses and (*) provisions may be assessed electronically at the website acquisition.gov. NOTE: ALL

PROVISIONS WILL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF AWARD BUT SHALL REMAIN PART OF THE

CONTRACT FILE.

BROOKE Z. VANDEMAN

AFTC/PZIA (Arnold) Contracting Officer

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Statement of Work *Attachment 2 – Project Schedule Worksheet *Attachment 3 – Pricing Worksheet Attachment 4 – Provisions and Clauses Attachment 5 – DRAFT Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) *Attachment 6 – Demonstrated Past Performance *Attachment 7 – Offeror Certifications

*Attachments are to be completed by offeror and submitted with proposal.