PPQ_Experience_Forms.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN FOR

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE

FISH UNIT BREAKER REPLACEMENT

SOLICITATION NUMBER

W9127N-16-R-0011

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY

ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – PORTLAND DISTRICT

PORTLAND, OR 97204

31 August 2016

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Coordination Page

The attached Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the above project is hereby recommended for approval by the following functional activities:

Submitted by:

Contract Specialist

Concurrence:

Deputy for Small Business Legal Counsel

SSEB Chairperson Contracting Officer

Approval:

Source Selection Authority

DVORAK.DAVID.LAW

RENCE.1160820540

Digitally signed by

DVORAK.DAVID.LAWRENCE.1160820540

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=DVORAK.DAVID.LAWRENCE.1160820540 Date: 2016.09.08 13:02:56 -07'00'

MCINTYRE.CARO

L.A.1228958995

Digitally signed by

MCINTYRE.CAROL.A.1228958995

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=MCINTYRE.CAROL.A.1228958995 Date: 2016.09.08 12:54:45 -07'00'

LOVATO.AUTUM

N.V.1365177569

Digitally signed by

LOVATO.AUTUMN.V.1365177569

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=LOVATO.AUTUMN.V.1365177569 Date: 2016.09.08 14:16:49 -07'00'

CUTTS.MATTHEW.E

UGENE.1164998912

Digitally signed by

CUTTS.MATTHEW.EUGENE.1164998912

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=CUTTS.MATTHEW.EUGENE.1164998912 Date: 2016.09.08 13:34:54 -07'00'

BYAM.BARBARA.

V.1232155406

Digitally signed by BYAM.BARBARA.V.1232155406 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=BYAM.BARBARA.V.1232155406 Date: 2016.09.08 14:45:43 -07'00'

BYAM.BARBARA.

V.1232155406

Digitally signed by BYAM.BARBARA.V.1232155406 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=BYAM.BARBARA.V.1232155406 Date: 2016.09.08 14:46:16 -07'00'

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN FOR

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE FISH UNIT BREAKER REPLACEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Background and Objectives

2. Acquisition Strategy

3. Description of Responsibilities of Source Selection Members

4. Basis for Award

5. Submission of Proposals

6. Evaluation Factors

7. Schedule of Significant Milestones

8. Government Evaluation and Documentation

Attachment A – USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form

Attachment B - Offeror’s Experience Form

Attachment C – Policies, Instructions, and Standards of Conduct

Attachment D – Source Selection Participation Agreement

Attachment E – Certificate of Non-Disclosure

Attachment F– Performance Assessment Team Evaluation Form Telephone Interview Questionnaire Form.

Attachment G - Individual Technical Evaluation Form Technical Evaluation Team Consensus Form Minority Opinion Report.

Attachment H - Guidelines for writing evaluation Notices

Attachment I – Evaluation Notice Form – Clarifications

Attachment J - Evaluation Notice (En) Form - Discussion

Attachment K - Source Selection Evaluation Board Consensus Report Template

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN FOR

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE FISH UNIT BREAKER REPLACEMENT

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Portland District, seeks a contractor to perform the construction of The Dalles Fish Unit Breaker Replacement, and incidental related work. The project will substantially improve safety and management of power distribution from the two fish water generators in The Dalles powerhouse. The upgraded facility will include the following major features:

1. Replace the existing fish water unit 15kV breakers

2. Disconnect the fish water units from Transformer TA and reconnect them to Transformer T3

3. Provide additional breakers and reconfigure the bus for redundancy of the system

4. Replace the current-limiting reactors at the station service taps

5. Replace the fish water neutral breakers with high resistance ground systems

6. Modify the existing switchgear control switchboards

7. Upgrade the surge arresters, instrument transformers, and relays to improve arc flash protection

The work is located at The Dalles Dam, Klickitat County, Washington.

2. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. The magnitude of construction is $5M - $10M. Award is anticipated by 19 December 2016. Construction activities will take place between 15 February 2017 and 15 May 2018. Market Research was conducted and determined this to be an unrestricted procurement.

3. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST)

The evaluation and selection of the successful offeror will be performed by the following organizational elements:

a. Source Selection Authority (SSA). For this procurement the SSA is also the Contracting Officer (KO). The SSA will be Barbara V. Byam, CECT-NWP.

The Source Selection Authority shall:

Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

Appoint the chairpersons for the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

Ensure that personnel appointed to the SSEB are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SSEB members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, “Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2107 (formerly 41 U.S.C. § 423), and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information.

Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement.

Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements from Government members/advisors are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See C.F.R. § 2635).

Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in Section 00100 of the solicitation.

Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

b. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB is comprised of a Chairperson and evaluators. The SSEB will evaluate the technical proposals, utilizing technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The board will meet to evaluate proposals, using factors described in the basis of award. Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations to the

SSA.

The SSEB Chairperson shall:

a. Review all aspects of all proposals, and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposals in an impartial and equitable manner.

b. Assure the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

c. Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

d. Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

e. Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, allowed and approved.

f. Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

g. Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

h. Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

i. Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

j. Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

k. Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

l. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSA.

m. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and times assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

n. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

o. Ensure the evaluation processes follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

p. Provide consolidated evaluation activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

2. The SSEB members shall:

a. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

b. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

c. Thoroughly document the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and uncertainties identified in the proposals in sufficient detail so the SSA can determine whether and to what extent each proposal met, did not meet or exceeded each evaluation factor and sub-factor.

d. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

e. Support any post-source-selection activities, such and debriefings and post-award reviews or meetings as required.

f. Brief the SSA as required.

g. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSA

h. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices.

The SSEB will be comprised of the following members who have been selected for their technical expertise in specific areas associated with this acquisition:

Name Function Office Matthew E. Cutts Chair CENWP-EC-DE Bob Schofield Member CENWP-HDC-E Scott Wilcox Member CENWP-EC-CB Dara Doty Alternate CENWP-OD-D

c. Professional Advisors. The Contract Specialist will assist the SSEB by compiling the board comments, answering technical questions, preparing a summary report comparing the offers received qualitatively for the Source Selection Authority, documenting negotiations (if necessary), and participating in price analysis. The Attorney will ensure the process is consistent with the solicitation terms and pertinent regulations. The Small Business Specialist will assist the SSEB with any Small Business Participation matters. The following personnel will act as professional advisors to the rating members:

Name Function Office David L. Dvorak Contract Specialist CECT-NWP-C Autumn Lovato Attorney CENWP-OC

E. Contracting Officer (KO). The KO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire source selection. The KO will be Barbara V. Byam. The KO shall:

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

1. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

2. Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clauses are included in the RFP before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support.

3. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information.

4. Approve access to or release of source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

5. Maintain the documents and source selection evaluation records.

6. Release the final RFP only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

7. Serve as the single point of contact for all RFP-related inquiries from actual or prospective

Offerors.

8. Establish the competitive range and enter into discussions.

9. Award the contract.

10. Chair all required debriefings.

4. BASIS FOR AWARD.

A. General.

(1) This solicitation is an unrestricted competitive acquisition using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process for the award of a firm fixed-price contract. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. This acquisition will utilize FAR Part 15 LPTA source selection procedures, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government.

(2) The Government intends to make an award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. Because the Government does not intend to hold discussions Offerors are encouraged to include their best pricing in their initial proposal.

(3) In the context of this proposal, the “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that the Offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation or proposes to perform the Isolated-Phase Bus portion of the work. The Offeror may submit the experience of major subcontractors in order to demonstrate that the Offeror meets the RFP requirements below.

(4) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to.

The successful Offeror will be selected solely on the basis of the evaluation factors set forth below.

Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged.

(5) Joint Ventures (JV) A joint venture is defined as follows: a legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreements” or “strategic alliance” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

A company that is part of a joint venture shall submit a legally binding joint venture agreement.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Joint ventures shall include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the joint venture with the chief executive of each entity identified. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience and past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The experience for each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole.

B. Evaluation Ratings

(1) The principle objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. An evaluation of acceptability will be performed on each proposal in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process.

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards of non-cost factors. Tradeoffs are not permitted. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the acceptability standards for non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and thus preclude award.

(2) A Technical Proposal will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based upon whether it demonstrates the minimum requirements of the RFP.

Table 1. TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating DESCRIPTION

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. (See note above)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. Administrative Details and General Instructions: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

(1) General Proposal Format. Submit each copy of the proposal in tabbed, 3-ring binders with a “D” ring or locking closures.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Title Page. Each copy must include the Offeror’s name and address, phone number and email address, title of the solicitation, solicitation number and date of submittal clearly identified on the front cover of the binder.

Table of Contents. Each binder of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents.

The complete table of contents shall be included in each binder.

Printed Matter Submissions. Pages containing text are expected to be 8 ½ x 11 inches with at least one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Paragraphs should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard 11-point font in either Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required.

Organization charts or schedules. A folded 11” x 17” format may be used. Larger format drawings or tables may be added by folding them to fit within the binder.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. If the materials do not fit within a single volume, they should be separated in additional binders, but clearly identified as such. Each volume of the proposal is expected to contain a table of contents, summary section with a brief abstract of the volume, and the narrative discussion.

THE OFFEROR SHALL SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF EACH PROPOSAL.

The electronic version shall be on a readable CD. Any discrepancies between the electronic and paper copies shall give precedence to the paper copy.

(2) Proposal Content Limitations.

The Offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offeror’s are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. The page count is at the discretion of the Offeror, however the proposal may not be more than 25 pages total.

The evaluation panel for the Government is instructed to evaluate the non-price proposal factors on the basis of the information provided. Extraneous information provided in the proposals will not be considered in the evaluations; therefore, the Offeror should only provide information that satisfies the solicitation requirements. Merely restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement.

DO NOT cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat data, project information or experience in more than one non-price area as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

Proprietary information must be clearly marked.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two (2) volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I) and a price proposal (Volume II). Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently from evaluation of the other. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price. The narrative and content structure of the proposal shall follow the format shown in the table for Volume I below. Offeror’s who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award.

(1) Technical Proposal, Volume I: Provide one (1) original and four (3) copies and one (1) pdf. file on a CD-ROM. Volume I shall consist of information for the three (3) factors listed in

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

tabular form, as noted below. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be determined to show a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Factors:

Tab 1 – Factor 1: Experience

Tab 2 – Factor 2: Past Performance

Tab 3 – Factor 3: Schedule

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: The Price Proposal shall be submitted on one (1) original copy and one (1) pdf. file on a CD-ROM. Contractors shall provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442). Your price proposal must be prepared in accordance with below paragraphs and must include:

Tab 1 - SF1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

The SF1442 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Block 19 of SF1442.

Tab 2 – Section 00010, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule.

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 3 - Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offeror’s.

The Offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00600 and also ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management (SAM) website, www.sam.gov.

Tab 4 – Banking and Bonding Points of Contact.

The Government is required to determine Contractor’s responsibility; the Offeror shall provide contact information (company name, point of contact, address, email, and phone number) for the Offeror’s bank and bonding institutions.

Tab 5 - Bid/Offer Guarantee. The Bid Bond shall be at least 20% of the bid price, but shall not exceed $3 million. See FAR Clause 52.228-1 – Bid Guarantee.

C. Submission of Proposals: Proposals must arrive at the location designated in the RFP for receipt of such proposals prior to the time and date established in Block 13, SF 1442. There will not be a public proposal opening. In order for the proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted as a hardcopy original (Volume I and II) and four (4) copies (Technical Volume I only) with the required electronic CD-ROM:

BY HAND OR COURIER TO:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

Block 300 (10th Floor USACE Security Desk) 333 SW First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: David L. Dvorak – CECT-NWP-C

OR SURFACE MAIL ADDRESS:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

P. O. Box 2946

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Portland, OR 97208-2946 Attention: David L. Dvorak – CECT-NWP-C

NOTE: E-MAIL SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. If the electronic CD-ROM proposal differs from the hard copy, the hard copy will take precedence.

OFFEROR SHALL MARK THE OUTSIDE ENVELOPE(S) AS FOLLOWS:

Envelope(s) shall be plainly marked with the following information:

Solicitation No. W9127N-16-R-0011 Proposal Due Date: ____________________________________ Number of each amendment that has been received: _________

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method:

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Experience

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall submit information for up to two recent and relevant projects* that demonstrates the Offeror’s experience with:

(1) 5 kV or larger switchgear installation, and

(2) Isolated-Phase Bus installation.

For each project submitted, include the information outlined in Attachment B, Offeror’s Experience Form. It is up to the offeror to describe each project experience with enough specificity so that the Government can determine whether the acceptability criteria outlined below has been met.

*Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed** in the past 5 years of the date the proposals are due that are similar in scope and complexity with this project, as described in Specification Section 01, 11 00.00 25 SUMMARY OF WORK.

**Substantially complete is defined as being 75% complete by the date that proposals are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

***The Government will consider the experience of major subcontractors proposed to meet the RFP requirements. However, in order to be considered, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment for any subcontractor where subcontractor experience is used to demonstrate experience under this factor. Subcontractors proposed to be used may not be substituted upon award without the Contracting Officer’s prior written approval.

A maximum of two recent projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two projects, only the first two projects will be evaluated for meeting the requirements. Offerors shall describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess whether the projects submitted meet the minimum evaluation criteria outlined.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Evaluation criteria:

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

Acceptable: To be determined “acceptable,” the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate the offeror has both of the following experiences:

1. The offeror has experience installing 5 kV or larger switchgear.

2. The offeror has experience installing Isolated-Phase Bus.

Unacceptable: The offeror’s proposal fails to demonstrate that the offeror has both: Experience installing 5 kV or larger switchgear and experience installing Isolated-Phase Bus.

Table 1. TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1, Experience. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed** within five years of the date that proposals are due that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work within this requirement.

** Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time proposals are due.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal if a CPARS is not available. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Michael I. Grasso, via email at Michael.I.Grasso@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s),FAPIIS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Evaluation Method:

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the project outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the project.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements, and other customer expectations on these projects.

The Government reserves the right to obtain or verify offeror’s past performance information from references and other sources available to the Government.

Past performance under Factor 2 shall be evaluated using the following rating of an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings stated in Table 2:

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Table 2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

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. (See note below.)

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.”

FACTOR 3 (TAB 3) - Schedule

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a schedule, in Gantt chart format, for completing the work within the timeframes described in the solicitation requirements. The Gantt chart shall be in calendar days only. At a minimum, the schedule shall include the following:

1. Mobilization,

2. Contractual milestones described in 52.211-10 ALT1,

3. Fish water unit shutdown periods,

4. Main unit shutdown periods,

5. Major features of work as described below:

Replace the existing fish water unit 15kV breakers Disconnect the fish water units from Transformer TA and reconnect them to Transformer T3 Provide additional breakers and reconfigure the bus for redundancy of the system Replace the current-limiting reactors at the station service taps Replace the fish water neutral breakers with high resistance ground systems Modify the existing switchgear control switchboards

Upgrade the surge arresters, instrument transformers, and relays to improve arc flash protection, and

6. Demobilization.

Note: The Gantt chart schedule shall be in calendar-days format. A working day Gantt chart schedule will not be acceptable for this factor.

Evaluation Method:

The Schedule will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. The Government will review the offeror’s schedule in order to determine whether the offeror’s schedule includes all of the required schedule submission requirements, as outlined above, and to determine whether the offeror’s schedule for those required items meets the timeframes as required by the solicitation specifications.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Acceptable: To be determined “acceptable,” the offeror’s schedule must include a Gantt chart that includes the work items outlined in the submission requirements above, in a logical sequence, and be completed within the timeframes described in the solicitation specifications, to include the Main unit / Fish water unit shutdown periods.

Unacceptable: The offeror’s schedule fails to include a schedule in Gantt chart format addressing each of the work items contained in the submission requirements. The offeror’s proposed schedule demonstrates an inability to complete the work within the timeframes described in the solicitation specifications or to complete the work on time. The offeror’s proposed schedule fails to complete all work requiring an outage within the timeframes described in the solicitation.

Table 1. TECHNICAL Acceptable/Unacceptable RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Volume II - Price.

Price Evaluation

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price (sum of all CLINs) of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for all optional items to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

7. SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES.

Pre-solicitation/Synopsis 11 Jul 2016 Advertise 15 Sep 2016 Proposals Due 18 Oct 2016 SSEB Technical Review 20 - 27 Oct 2016 Competitive Range 18 Nov 2016 Discussions / Negotiations 3 Jan 2017 Reevaluation and final report 8 Jan 2017 Final SSEB Board Report 16 Jan 2017 Award 21 Feb 2017

8. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION AND DOCUMENTATION

A. Proposal Evaluation

1. Receipt of Proposals – All proposals will be received by the KO or designee not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. Upon receipt of proposals the KO or designee should conduct an initial screening to ascertain that each Offeror has submitted all of the required information, including electronic media, in the quantities and format specified in the RFP. The KO will retain the original of the Offeror’s proposal and associated data. The SSEB Chairperson will control all copies of the Offeror’s proposals and other associated data.

2. Individual Evaluations – Each member of the SSEB shall evaluate each proposal independently and, using the solicitation evaluation criteria, assign a rating of acceptable or unacceptable for each factor. It is critical that each individual evaluator describes in detail the basis for the assigned rating using the solicitation evaluation criteria. Care must be taken to cite the specific project, past performance evaluation, and/or specific portion of the offeror’s proposal that generates these findings.

3. SSEB Consensus – Following independent review of the proposals, the SSEB will meet and reach a consensus rating for each factor of each proposal (note that the KO may request that consensus be conducted following independent review of each proposal, as opposed to waiting until all proposals are individually reviewed). The KO may also request that the KO or contract specialist be present during the consensus meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, a Minority Report will be completed for inclusion in the file.

4. SSEB Report – The SSEB Chairperson will provide an overall summary report of the board’s findings. This report will be forwarded to the SSA and shall contain the rating for each offeror under each factor and sub-factor. The SSEB Report should contain the submittal instructions and evaluation method for each factor/subfactor. For each individual offeror, the SSEB Report shall contain the following:

a. Factor or sub-factor title

b. A summary of what the Offeror submitted – detailed enough so the SSA can tell whether all minimum requirements have been met.

c. Consensus rating – either acceptable or unacceptable

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

d. Summary of how what the offeror submitted for the factor/subfactor met or did not meet the solicitation evaluation criteria.

e. Minority opinions from an evaluator that does not agree with the team's rating, and why.

It is critical that the SSEB report describes in detail the basis for the assigned rating using the solicitation evaluation criteria – For example:

“To be acceptable under Factor 1, the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate that the offeror has experience installing and/or modifying electrical switchgear rated 4.76kV or higher valued over $2,000,000.00 at a powerhouse or similar industrial facility. The offeror’s proposal must also demonstrate that the offeror has performed isolated phase bus work valued over $2,000,000.00 for switchgear at a powerhouse or similar industrial facility. Or, the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate experience installing and/or modifying electrical switchgear rated 4.76kV or higher and isolated phase bus work with net value over $3,000,000.00 at a powerhouse or similar industrial facility. Offeror X submitted all of the information required under the submission requirements for this factor. The projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria as described in the solicitation under Factor 1.

Offeror X submitted three projects under Factor 1:

1. The first project submitted is the Grand Coulee Station Service Upgrades, valued at

$10M. The project involved 13.8kV switchgear, which demonstrates the offeror’s experience performing relevant electrical work.

2. The second project submitted is the Clearwater Waste Treatment Facility Installation Project – it is valued at $5.5M and involved the installation of electrical switchboard controls and relaying for switchgear valued over $4M. The project demonstrates the offeror’s experience performing relevant electrical work.

3. The third project was not considered because the RFP limited project submissions to two projects.

Per the RFP for Factor 1, two projects demonstrate the offeror’s experience with electrical switchgear rated 11kV to 38kV valued over $4,000,000. The two projects submitted by Offeror X demonstrate experience in electrical switchboard control and relaying work for switchgear at a powerhouse or industrial facility valued over $4,000,000. Therefore, Offeror X is given an acceptable rating for Factor 1.”

5. Discussion Intent – Awards may be made without discussions or any contact concerning the proposals received in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority later determines them to be necessary.

6. Competitive Range Determination – If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting officer will establish a Competitive Range. Any proposal(s) that the Contracting Officer determines, with SSA approval, to not be among the most highly rated proposals will be considered outside the competitive range and eliminated from further consideration. The Contracting Officer will promptly inform the Offeror(s) in writing.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

7. Discussions – The Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with each Offeror retained in the competitive range. After the conclusion of discussions the final proposal revisions will be evaluated and the re-evaluation will be documented in a supplemental report (Final Evaluation Report), which addresses each factor and sub-factor of the Initial and Interim Evaluation Report. The Final Evaluation Report will not contain a recommendation pertaining to which Offeror should be selected for award.

B. Communications and Securing Source Selection Materials. The KO and SSEB Chair will ensure “information security”, including information integrity, confidentiality, and availability is maintained as described in FAR 2.101. Electronic source selection information shall be housed in an access controlled, password protected site. All source selection materials will be marked in accordance with FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 and secured as prescribed by the KO and SSEB Chair. Communications procedures and limitations will be provided by the KO and SSEB Chair.

All communication with industry will be through the Contract Specialist or KO. Communications between Source Selection Members will only occur in secure environments, such as the SSEB Evaluation room or the KO’s office. Use of email during the source selection process to discuss the evaluation, the competitors or their proposals is strictly prohibited unless authorized specifically by the KO. Only persons who have signed the participation and non-disclosure agreements will be authorized access to the source selection information, and then, only on a need to know basis. Proposals will be kept in a lock cabinet at all times when not being evaluated.

During evaluation, proposals will be kept in a secure room.

C. SSA Selection. The SSA will review the SSEB Report and offeror proposals in order to select the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. In this case, award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

D. Announcement of Selection. The Contracting Officer will make the announcement of the selection of a successful contractor directly or through his/her designee.

E. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors. The Contracting Officer will chair and conduct the debriefing, but may request that the SSEB chair or an SSEB member provide input as necessary.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

ATTACHMENT A

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. The USACE Form PPQ shall be utilized for all evaluations that require a Past Performance Questionnaire.

2. Solicitations:

“Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT

SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS

EVALUATION, the PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3, Recent of Current Past Performance.

AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow- up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, David L. Dvorak, via email at David.L.Dvorak@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.”

USACE Form PPQ will be made accessible on FBO website as a separate attachment.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

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

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

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? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit…