Section 00 22 00 - Supplementary Instructions.pdf

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one (1) contractor for Construction of a Microgrid system at the Fort Buchanan Army Installation in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This is a single-phase procurement, and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 12 for review and evaluation by the Government. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein. The Contracting Officer will award a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. NOTE: ALL EVALUATION FACTORS, OTHER THAN PRICE, WHEN

COMBINED ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO PRICE.

1.2 This project is for a Design-Bid-Build Construction of a Microgrid system at the Fort Buchanan

Army Installation in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The design/bid/build construction project to provide an installation-level microgrid at Fort Buchanan consisting of twelve (12) continuous duty 570 KW diesel generators with 480V output. Each generator output will be stepped up to 13.2KV via step-up transformers, and a BESS of approximately 2.5MWh/4MW. There will be nine (9) 12,000-gallon above-ground, ballistic-resistant, diesel fuel tanks with a fuel polishing system to sustain critical operations continuously for 14 days. In addition, the project will install a microgrid control system, paralleling system, transformers, circuit breakers, protective relaying, and fiber optic communication connections throughout Ft Buchanan. The microgrid will include integration of existing large-scale onsite generation (4.65 MW from solar photovoltaic (PV) array and two 275 kW wind turbines).

1.3 The microgrid system will support energy resiliency by providing on-site energy generation, this includes the installation of diesel generators, microgrid control system, electrical interconnection switchgear, interconnection circuit wirings, and modification to the existing electrical distribution system as necessary to establish the Fort Buchanan microgrid network. An interconnection agreement will require approval by the utility provider, LUMA.

1.4 The target ceiling for contract award for construction is $45,000,000 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government may not be able to award a contract in excess of this ceiling. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs

2.3 and 2.4 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted electronically with a table of contents and section dividers in accordance with the Electronic Submittal Instructions via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District, no later than the time specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. Hard copies of proposals will not be accepted. Offerors are encouraged to save a copy of their confirmation of upload in the event there is a technical issue to show proof of upload. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

*NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

• Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach o Element I: Management Plan o Element II: Schedule Narrative

2.4 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements

• Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial

Ability

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

*NOTE 1: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

2.5 Proposals: ALL SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at https://wawf.eb.mil/.

Instructions on how to create a vendor account will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_I nstructions.pdf

Instructions on how to submit an offer will be posted to sam.gov and can be located at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf https://wawf.eb.mil/ https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/cap/docs/piee/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions.pdf https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

Electronic Files: Submission shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

• W912QR26RA028-FIRMNAME -VOLUME I

• W912QR26RA028-FIRMNAME -VOLUME II

Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples above.

File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 11 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in each section for each factor.

Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within PIEE. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. 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. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. As noted above, Offerors will not receive a confirmation email but instead will receive upload confirmation in the browser following successful upload. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Electronic Files: Files shall be in a searchable Adobe PDF format. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications.

Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked).

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e), which is found in Section 00 21 00 of the RFP. The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of

Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (Volume I) will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above in Paragraph 1.1.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of four (4) parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, past performance/technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that both a technical and price proposal were received, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Past Performance/Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Paragraph 4.6, Tables 1 (Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) and Table 2 (Performance Confidence Rating).

The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past performance and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3 (Combined/Technical Risk Assessment Ratings).

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB and Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority (SSA) will evaluate price proposals independent of, and subsequent to, the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

3.2.4 Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all the above evaluations are complete, the SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices.

The SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are considered approximately equal to price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 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.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II –Technical Approach 2nd

o Element I: Management Plan Equally as important as Element II o Element II: Schedule Narrative Equally as important as Element I

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Separate file from Volume 1)

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Tab E Cybersecurity Maturity Model (CMMC) Level Certification

Eligible/Not Eligible

4.5 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings 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 effort.

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

TABLE 3

Combined Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

4.6 Definitions

1. Access Control Systems. Refers to the security measures implemented within the microgrid's control system, limiting who can access and modify its operational parameters, ensuring only authorized personnel can manage the generation, distribution, and load balancing functions of the microgrid, preventing unauthorized changes or potential disruptions to the power supply.

2. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “CPARS” or “FAPIIS.” Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

3. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Systems in which batteries receive electricity from the power grid, straight from the power station, or from a renewable energy source like solar panels or other energy source, and subsequently store it as current to then release it when it is needed.

4. Centralized Generation. The process of producing electricity at large facilities and distributing it to consumers through a power grid.

5. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

6. Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c).

7. 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. Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

9. Distributed Energy Resources (DER). Smaller generation units that are located on the consumer's side of the meter. Examples of distributed energy resources that can be installed include roof top solar photovoltaic units, wind generating units, battery storage.

10. Duct Bank. A protective conduit system that carries electrical and communication cables for a microgrid. Duct banks can be installed underground or above ground.

11. Generation Storage Management System. A software platform designed to efficiently manage and optimize the storage of data generated by power plants or other energy generation sources.

12. Generator. Generators harness mechanical energy, fueled by natural gas in this case, to create electricity. Natural gas generators use fuels such as propane or natural gas, drawn either from a direct line piped in by utility suppliers or via a tank, to generate electricity.

13. Load-Balancing Controllers. A specialized control unit that actively manages the distribution of electrical load across different distributed energy resources (DERs) within the microgrid.

14. Microgrid. A group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. A microgrid can connect and disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected mode and island mode.

15. Performance Confidence Assessment. Evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

16. Photovoltaics (PV). PV is the conversion of light into electricity using semiconducting materials that exhibit the photovoltaic effect. A photovoltaic system employs solar modules, each comprising a number of solar cells, which generate electrical power. PV installations may be ground-mounted, rooftop-mounted, wall-mounted or floating. The mount may be fixed or use a solar tracker to follow the sun across the sky.

17. Recency. As it pertains to past performance information, recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

18. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

19. Risk as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

20. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

22. Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

23. Switchgear. A centralized collection of electrical devices like circuit breakers, fuses, and disconnect switches that function to control, isolate, and protect the flow of power within the microgrid, essentially acting as a central hub for managing electricity distribution and ensuring safety during faults or maintenance needs; it allows for the selective disconnection of circuits when necessary while maintaining power to other parts of the microgrid.

24. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconducting_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconducting_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_tracker

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the offeror as the Prime Contractor within the last six (6) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than six (6) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are deemed substantially complete when at least 95% of the construction work, including commissioning activities, has been completed. If commissioning is not finalized, provide the current status of commissioning activities and description of activities remaining. Projects that do not have finalized commissioning activities may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

*NOTE: Each project description shall not exceed three (3) pages, 8.5” x 11,” using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size to this requirement shall include construction of projects for new construction diesel generation systems which meets or exceeds the following size elements:

a. Installation and construction of diesel generators able to handle loads of at least 2.5MW.

b. Installation of a BESS of 2.5MWh/4MW

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope shall include construction of a microgrid demonstrating at least five (5) of the following scope elements:

1. Installation of diesel centralized generators (various voltage configurations).

2. Information and communication systems, including fiber optics.

3. Installation of microgrid systems.

4. Installation of breakers and switchgear (low and medium voltage).

5. Integration of photovoltaic systems (including systems larger than 1 MW).

6. Installation of microgrid control systems, including generator and battery energy storage systems (BESS).

7. Installation of electrical and telecommunication duct banks.

8. Installation of fuel storage systems for diesel generators.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least fifteen (15%) percent of the direct contract labor (including testing and layout personnel) with its own employees, exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain at least one of the following features:

a. New construction project for USACE

b. New construction project in Puerto Rico

c. Construction of a project greater than $20M

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a. Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier.

b. Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete.

For projects that are not yet complete, provide percent of work complete and a description of work remaining to be completed.

c. Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

d. Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both.

e. Role of firm: Provide a description of the type of work performed and the percentage of work that was self-performed.

f. Dollar value of the project.

g. Whether the project was Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build

h. Two references for the project, with emails and telephone numbers.

*NOTE: There is a total page limit of fifteen (15) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Past Performance factor. Past- Performance Questionnaires/CPARS Evaluations do not count toward this page count. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is attached for your convenience. If used, the PPQ must be submitted by the Offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. For each project, the Offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s respective corrective action. Note: Project references, CPARS, PPQs, letters, awards, etc.

which support past performance on these projects do not count toward the 3-page limitation for project description details.

*NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, and sister companies will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement, or unless those other contractors are affiliates of the offeror as defined in accordance with 13 CFR

121.103 and with proof of affiliation provided with the offer. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a Joint Venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members.

However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number with the proposal.

For all Joint venture agreements, small business offerors submitting a proposal as a MentorProtégé JV under the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MPP) shall submit a copy of their SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement under Volume II, Tab B of the proposal. (See Section 7.2). Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

Additionally, offerors may enter into Teaming Arrangements with one or more subcontractors.

However, such arrangements are distinct from a formal Joint Venture. While these arrangements define the roles and responsibilities for contract execution, they do not allow for the past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors to be evaluated, unless the teaming partners or subcontractors subject to the Teaming Arrangement are also small businesses.

• Evaluation Clarification: For the avoidance of doubt, projects performed by teaming partners or subcontractors under a Teaming Arrangement will not be evaluated for past performance credit. The evaluation will solely consider the past performance of the Prime Contractor identified in Block 14 of the SF 1442. Projects performed by teaming partners or subcontractors under a Teaming Arrangement won’t be evaluated unless the teaming partners or subcontractors are also small businesses.

• Documentation Requirement: Offerors proposing a Teaming Arrangement shall submit a copy of the written agreement. This agreement must set forth the different responsibilities, roles, and the percentage or allocation of work for each team member as it relates to this acquisition.

• Small Business Teaming Arrangements: A small business contractor may team with other small businesses without regard to affiliation. In addition to the requirements above, the written agreement for a Small Business Teaming Arrangement must:

• (A) Be specifically referred to as a "Small Business Teaming Arrangement"; and

• (B) Set forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work for each team member.

Relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror will be considered.

Affiliates (as defined by FAR 2.101) means associated business concerns or individuals if, directly or indirectly either one controls or can control the other; or third-party controls or can control both. Affiliation will be determined in accordance with 13 CFR 121.103. In determining whether affiliation exists, the Government will consider the totality of the circumstances and may find affiliation even though no single factor is sufficient to constitute affiliation. If an offeror is submitting the past performance of an affiliate, the offeror must submit proof of affiliation pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 The SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project and the offeror’s experience in successfully delivering the project(s) on time and within budget. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table (Table 1) in Paragraph 4.5.

5.2.2 The SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references.

In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) numbers identified in the offeror’s proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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. Past performance information retrieved through CPARS, or other sources are not subject to the same evaluation criteria but will instead be reviewed for recent negative performance, trends of negative performance, and any other performance information that may negatively impact the offeror’s Confidence rating.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings table (Table 2) in Paragraph 4.5, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, and (2) how well the offeror performed that past performance.

6. Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach:

6.1 Submission Requirements:

The Technical Approach factor will consist of two (2) elements: Management Plan and Schedule Narrative.

6.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will review the evaluations of the two (2) elements listed below and determine the quality of the offeror’s Technical Approach. The SSEB will assign an overall Technical/Risk Rating using the ratings in the Combined Technical/Risk Assessment table (Table 3) in Paragraph 4.5.

6.2 Element I: Management Plan

6.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide a management plan narrative for the project that describes how your labor, resources, designers, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the Management Plan shall include the following information:

• Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating the identified risk during contract performance to include coordination with subcontractor, general labor, privatized utilities, Base Civil Engineering, and Security Forces.

• Describe your communication process and frequency for progress meetings to include agenda topics for progress meetings to ensure successful project completion

*NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides for the Management Plan portion of this factor. Certificates and qualifications do NOT count towards the total page limit.

Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

6.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Management Plan narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction of the project. The Management Plan will be evaluated for how well it demonstrates how the offeror plans to manage this project in particular, what critical tasks in this solicitation they believe needs more attention to help mitigate risk, experience managing other USACE projects, and experience using the Resident Management System (RMS). Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the solicited project may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

6.3 Element II: Schedule Narrative

6.3.1 Submission Requirements

Based on the project budget and scope, provide a schedule narrative describing the construction sequence/process for successful completion of the project within the duration shown in FAR 52.211-10. At a minimum, the Schedule Narrative shall address the timing and process(es) necessary to complete the key activities indicated below:

• Pre-Construction Submittals and Government Review

• Long Lead Items

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) Process Activities

• Key Permits including coordination with local power company(ies)

• Equipment start-up through full system Commissioning Activities and Critical

Submittals

• Project Closeout Planning and Coordination including Red Zone Meeting

• As-Builts

Additionally, Offerors are to provide a simple bar chart that shows the key activities indicated above.

*NOTE: There is a page limit of five (5) single sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Schedule Narrative portion of this factor. There is a page limit of three (3) 11” x 17” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the bar chart portion of this element.

Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit will not be evaluated.

6.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

The schedule narrative will be evaluated based on the understanding of the key activities identified in paragraph 6.3.1 above and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration. The bar chart will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s understanding of the appropriate sequencing and durations of the identified key activities. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the schedule impacts of the key activities and tasks and provide a thorough approach for successfully completing the contract within the contract duration may be rated more favorably by the SSEB.

*NOTE: The SSEB will evaluate the offeror’s schedule narrative using calendar days, not dates.

7. Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Price Breakout Schedule.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00 10 00, Proposal Price Breakout Schedule. Both of these forms are included in this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

• The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

• The Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15.404 independent of the Past Performance and Technical evaluations. The price will be evaluated on Base proposal plus all Options. The price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one (1) contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal, and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual JV members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) with the proposal.

Joint Venture Mentor-Protégé Requirements Small business Offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV Mentor- Protégé shall submit a copy from the Offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

Teaming Arrangement Requirements All Offerors may enter into a Teaming Arrangement with one or more subcontractors and submit an offer as a Teaming Arrangement. Offerors submitting a proposal as a Teaming Arrangement shall submit a copy of the written agreement between the Offeror and its subcontractor(s) through a written agreement between the parties that sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition.

A small business contractor may enter into a Small Business Teaming Arrangement with one or more small business subcontractors and submit an offer as a small business without regard to affiliation, so long as each team member is small for the size standard assigned to the contract or subcontract. Small business Offerors submitting a proposal as a Small Business Teaming Arrangement shall submit a copy of the written agreement between the Offeror and its small business subcontractor(s) through a written agreement between the parties that –

(A) Is specifically referred to as a "Small Business Teaming Arrangement"; and

(B) Sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition.

Small business teaming arrangements may include two business concerns in a mentor-protégé relationship in the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (see section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 4901 note prec.)) when both the mentor and the protégé are small. There is no exception to joint venture size affiliation for offers received from teaming arrangements under the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Small Business Joint Venture Agreements, Teaming Arrangements, and Mentor- Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company, which must be on the approved Treasury list available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

be rated. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address, and telephone numbers of two (2) credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

be rated.

7.5 Tab E – Cybersecurity Maturity Model (CMMC) Level Certification

7.5.1 Submission Requirements:

Contractors and Subcontractors are required to provide adequate security on all covered contractor information systems and complete and maintain, as current for the duration of the contract, an affirmation by the affirming official of continuous compliance with the requirements associated with the CMMC level required for this contract. Award can only be made to an Offeror with a CMMC Level that is fully compliant with the contract requirements.

An offeror's approach to meeting the CMMC requirements will be evaluated to determine its eligibility for award. While an offeror may be considered for evaluation without having the required CMMC status at the time of proposal submission, an offeror will not be eligible for award until the CMMC requirements are met.

The Contractor shall have and maintain for the duration of this contract, order, or agreement a current CMMC status at the following CMMC level, or higher for all information systems used in performance of the contract, task order, or delivery order that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI.

• CMMC Level 2 (Self);

• CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO);

Definitions and Compliance:

• FCI and CUI: Federal Contract Information (FCI) is information not intended for public release, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.204-21. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) requires additional safeguarding and may be subject to dissemination controls, as defined in 32 CFR Part 2002.

• Governing Clause: Offerors are directed to review DFARS 252.204-7021, “Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements,” for complete definitions, reporting standards, and subcontract flow-down information applicable to this contract.

Affirmation and Reporting:

Contractors and subcontractors are required to provide adequate security for all covered information systems. This includes an affirmation by the affirming official of the organization, maintained as current for the duration of the contract, of continuous compliance with the requirements associated with the CMMC level specified herein.

The Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) is the authoritative source for CMMC assessment scoring information. To enter or access CMMC Assessment information, users must be registered in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) at https://piee.eb.mil/ and request the “SPRS Cyber Vendor User” role.

The following documents are considered FCI; however, this list is not all-inclusive:

• Contractor Performance Details

• Contractor and Subcontractor Employee Lists

• Meeting Agendas and Minutes

• Contract Modification Paperwork

• Financial and Billing Information

• Quality Assurance Records

• Project Schedules and Timelines

• Shipping and Receiving Information

• Requests for Information

The following documents are considered CUI; however, this list is not all-inclusive:

• Engineering Drawings and Specifications

• Technical Reports

• Critical Infrastructure Information

• Personal Information – Identifiable, Medical & health, and Financial

• Subcontracting Plan

• Cost and Pricing Data

• Royalties, Inventions & Copyright Reports

• Bid, Performance, Payment, or other Bond Documents, Notice of Sureties, related info

• Cross-reference documents that are filed elsewhere

Vendor Help and Training Tutorials are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and https://dodcio.defense.gov/cmmc/Resources-Documentation/ A Training Tutorial on how to request access to SPRS via PIEE is available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/videos/Tutorials/SPRS_Access_Via_PIEE/SPRS_Access_Via_PIEE.html For Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Cyber Reports (CMMC & NIST) and CMMC – Cybersecurity Model Certification, go to https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/faqs.htm#nist and https://dowcio.war.gov/Portals/0/Documents/CMMC/CMMC-FAQsv3.pdf https://piee.eb.mil/ https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm https://dodcio.defense.gov/cmmc/Resources-Documentation/ https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/videos/Tutorials/SPRS_Access_Via_PIEE/SPRS_Access_Via_PIEE.html https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/faqs.htm#nist https://dowcio.war.gov/Portals/0/Documents/CMMC/CMMC-FAQsv3.pdf

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity Identifier:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission?