Attch A - Offerors Experience Form.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

FOR THE

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE 1 MAIN UNIT BREAKER (MUB) REPLACEMENT

SOLICITATION NUMBER

W9127N23R0010

UNRESTRICTED PROCUREMENT

Best Value Trade-Off

USACE PORTLAND

DISTRICT PORTLAND, OR

97204

Coordination Page

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

Submitted by:

Concurrence:

Carol A. McIntyre Elisabeth Dixon Small Business Professional Legal Counsel

Shade Griffin Cory Pfenning SSEB Chairperson Procurement Contracting Officer

Approval:

Cory Pfenning Source Selection Authority

Nicole A. Adams Contract Specialist

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN FOR

Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Main Unit Breaker (MUB) 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 and Evaluation

6. Evaluation Factors

7. Schedule of Significant Milestones

8. Evaluation Process and Procedures

Attachment A Offeror’s Experience Form

Attachment B USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form

Attachment C Small Business Commitment Document

Attachment D Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template

Attachment E Policies, Instructions, and Standards of Conduct

Attachment F Source Selection Participation Agreement

Attachment G Certificate of Non-Disclosure

Attachment H Guidelines for Writing Evaluation Notices

Attachment I Evaluation Notice (EN) Form – Clarifications

Attachment J Evaluation Notice (EN) Form – Discussions

Attachment K Sample Individual Evaluation Report

Attachment L Sample Consensus Evaluation Report

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN FOR

Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Main Unit Breaker (MUB) Replacement

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Portland District, seeks a contractor to design and manufacture a custom 15 kV switchgear, requiring a draw out circuit breaker, disconnect switch, and custom buswork to fit within the allowable space that currently exists at Bonneville Powerhouse 1 on Elevation 65. The project will include:

The Design, Manufacture, and Design Test of a Prototype Switchgear Assembly Supplying ten (10) Main Unit Breaker Switchgear Assemblies and five (5) Transfer Bus Breaker

Switchgear Assemblies Supplying Medium Voltage Bus for Switchgear Assemblies, Delta Bus Potential Transformers, Transfer Bus Isolation Breaker and Transfer Bus Potential Transformers Support and Supervise Switchgear Installation, Commissioning, and Acceptance Testing Contractor-Furnished Training of Government Personnel As-built Drawings and O&M Manuals

USACE, Portland District plans to advertise this solicitation in August 2023 and award the contract in November 2023. The estimated completion of this contract is expected September 2026.

2. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This acquisition will be unrestricted, and competition will be open to both small and large businesses. Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the Best Value Trade-off source selection procedures. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions if determined necessary by the Procurement Contracting Officer. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The estimated price is $19M. The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 335313 - Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing; Small Business Size Standard of up to 1250 employees. The PSC Code is 6110 - Electrical Control Equipment.

Market research was started 12 July 2022 via the Dynamic Small Business Search, Interagency Contract Directory Portal, and a Sources Sought Notice was posted to SAM.gov. A total of three (3) capability packages were received. A DD2579 was prepared and approved by the SBA on 26 June 2023 for a full and open acquisition.

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

A. Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will make the best-value decision independently, based upon a comparative assessment of the price and non-price factors in the solicitation. For this procurement the SSA is also the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). The SSA will be Cory Pfenning, CECT-NWP-C.

The SSA shall:

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

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

Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs dual leadership roles in the source selection pursuant to DFARS 203.170(a).

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 SSP.

Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of applicable portions of 41 U.S.C. § 2102-Prohibitions on Disclosing and Obtaining Procurement Information; 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 (NDA) and a Conflict-of-Interest Statement

(COI).

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 5 C.F.R. § 2635.

If discussions are determined necessary, review and approve the written rationale and competitive range determination.

Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation criteria and basis for award stated in the solicitation.

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

B. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB is composed of a Chairperson and evaluators (also known as SSEB Members). The SSEB will evaluate the technical proposals, utilizing technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The SSEB will meet to evaluate proposals, using the factors described in Section 00 21 00. Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested by the SSA.

The SSEB Chairperson shall:

Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, and identify chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams subject to approval of the SSA.

Review all aspects of all proposals, fully participate in all ratings, and ensure the SSEB provides written 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.

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

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

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

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

Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the SSEB.

Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

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

Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

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

Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

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

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

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

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

Provide consolidated evaluation results in an SSEB report to the SSA.

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

The SSEB Members shall:

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

Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation as amended if applicable.

Contemporaneously and thoroughly document, in writing, 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.

Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

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

Brief the SSA as required.

Respond to comments/instructions from the SSA.

Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

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

Name Function Office Shade Griffin Chair/Member CENWP-ENC-DE Dan Trowbridge Member CENWP-HDC Quyen Nguyen Member CENWP-ODB Jon Price Member CENWP- ENC-CB Carol McIntyre Member SB Commitment Factor CENWP-SB

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 matters. The following personnel will act as professional advisors to the rating members:

Name Function Office Nicole A. Adams Contract Specialist CECT-NWP-C Elisabeth Dixon Attorney CENWP-OC

NOTE: Procurement Contracting Officer approval is required prior to the SSEB discussing any matters related to this source selection with any subject matter expert (SME) advisor who is not a member of the SSEB. SME advisors will be used only if the Procurement Contracting Officer determines that the SSEB is lacking expertise in a subject matter that she determines is necessary in order to complete the evaluation. If the Procurement Contracting Officer determines that an SME advisor is needed, the SME advisor shall receive procurement integrity training from Legal Counsel and complete a source selection participation agreement and certificate of non-disclosure. The Procurement Contracting Officer will ensure that source selection information and contractor proposal information provided to SME advisors is limited to only information that is necessary for the SME advisor to provide the technical expertise.

D. Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection. The PCO will be Cory Pfenning, CECT- NWP. The PCO shall:

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 solicitation.

Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the solicitation before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (FAR

7.503 and 37.205).

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.

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

Maintain the documents and source selection evaluation records.

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

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

After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306.

Establish the competitive range and enter into discussions as applicable.

Award the contract.

Chair all required debriefings.

Manage and resolve any organizational conflicts of interest pursuant to FAR 9.504(a) and FAR 9.505.

Evaluate and determine the reasonableness of offered prices. The PCO should consult with a pricing subject matter expert (SME).

4. BASIS FOR AWARD.

A. General.

(1) The acquisition is being conducted using Full and Open Competition using Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed-price construction contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest-priced offer or to reject all offers. Offerors shall submit a technical volume and a price volume. The evaluation results of the non-price and price volumes as the entire proposal will determine an awardee. All non-price factors are approximately equal in importance. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(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) All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. Accordingly, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should provide clear, complete, concise, and straightforward responses to the evaluation factors. 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. Elaborate proposals, color brochures, and other excesses are discouraged. The offeror’s technical proposal will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

(4) 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 alliances” 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. 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 past performance of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity. The past performance for each joint venture partner will be considered the past performance of the joint venture entity. Page and project form limits apply to the joint venture as a whole. Prospective offerors that submit proposals may not change their firm (including Letters of Commitment (LOC) and proposed subcontractors) or their Joint Venture firms, if selected to submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

5. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS AND EVALUATION

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. The proposal shall be in electronic Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

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.

Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed and complete table of contents.

Submissions. PDF 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 is required. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

All information must be confined to the appropriate volume. 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.

(2) Proposal Content Limitations.

The offeror must confine the proposal to relevant information and documentation sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations for each of the non-price factors are listed within the individual factor descriptions.

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.

(3) English Language Requirement. In order for a proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in

ENGLISH.

B. Content of Proposals: All proposals must be prepared in two volumes: A technical proposal (Volume I), 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 (Volume I) must not contain pricing information. The narrative and content structure of the proposal shall follow the format shown under Volume I below. Offerors that 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) electronic proposal in Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Volume I shall consist of information for the three (3) factors, listed in 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 – Past Performance

Tab 2 – Factor 2 – Preliminary Design, Data, and Information

Tab 3 – Factor 3 – Small Business Commitment Document

(2) Price Proposal, Volume II: Provide one (1) electronic proposal in Portable Document

Format, filename extension “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader of a complete and detailed Price Proposal on the forms provided in the solicitation. Provide pricing and complete all line items on Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442). The price proposal must be prepared in accordance with the following 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 00 10 00, Proposal Price / Bid Schedule.

The Offeror shall fully complete this section.

Tab 3 – Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

The Offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00 45 00 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 a contractor’s responsibility. Accordingly, the Offeror shall provide contact information (company name, point of contact, address, email address, 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 52.228-1 – Bid Guarantee. Submit one (1) scanned copy of the completed Bid Bond, Standard Form 24. Corporate sureties must appear on the list contained in the Department of Treasury list at: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html. This item is not rated.

However, the Government will review the bid bond for legal sufficiency. Any bid bond found to be legally insufficient may render an offer ineligible for award.

Tab 6 – Subcontracting Plan Must conform to Small Business Commitment Document and follow template provided as an Attachment to the Solicitation.

Tab 7 – Government Furnished Property (GFP) If the contractor’s proposal includes any of the GFP listed in Attachment 1, Government Furnished Property, the offeror shall submit the following in accordance with FAR 45.201(c):

1. A list or description of all Government property that the offeror or its subcontractors propose to use on a rent-free basis. The list shall identify the accountable contract under which the property is held and the authorization for its use (from the contracting officer having cognizance of the property);

2. The dates during which the property will be available for use (including the first, last, and all intervening months) and, for any property that will be used concurrently in performing two or more contracts, the amounts of the respective uses in sufficient detail to support prorating the rent;

3. The amount of rent that would otherwise be charged in accordance with FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges; and

4. A description of the offeror's property management system, plan, and any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry-leading practices and standards to be used by the offeror in managing Government property.

C. Submission of Proposals: Proposals are due no later than the time and date established in Block 13, SF 1442. There will not be a public proposal opening.

Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable. Proposals received after the date and time in block 13A of the solicitation will be considered late and will not be considered for award.

Offeror shall submit its proposal via email to Nicole Adams, Nicole.A.Adams@usace.army.mil, and Cory Pfenning, cory.r.pfenning@usace.army.mil. Offerors should enter a description for every file submitted. For files over 20 megabytes (MB) the offeror shall break the file into smaller files sent via separate emails, each marked to identify which number the email is relative to the total number of emails submitted (i.e. “one of four”). Once all the emails submitted have been received, the Government will confirm receipt via return email. If an offeror submits multiple proposals, the Government will only consider the last proposal submitted prior to the due date and time.

The electronic proposal shall be in Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the table of contents.

Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted shall be considered. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e. offerors submission and all teammate/subcontractor(s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable.

To avoid rejection of an offer, the offeror must make every effort to ensure its electronic submission is virus-free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c).

The requirement that an original and copy(ies) be submitted as found in block 13A of the SF1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission. Additionally, electronic submission of the bid guarantee, when a bid guarantee is required, is due with the bid submission (mailing a bid guarantee is not allowed).

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

Definitions

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

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.

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.

Significant Weakness: in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty: is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

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

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

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Submit information* for three substantially complete projects that demonstrate the offeror’s experience performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation. Each project must be completed or be substantially completed within the last twelve (12) years from solicitation issue date.

“Substantially complete” is defined as having completed the design, testing, and more than 75% of manufacturing complete at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project meets the stated requirement. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project substantially complete, the Government will not evaluate the project for relevancy.

A maximum of three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three projects, only the first three projects will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

Instructions on the use of subcontractor past performance: Offerors may use the past performance of subcontractors. If the offeror submits past performance of a subcontractor, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor on the letterhead of the firm to be subcontracted. The letter of commitment must be signed by an authorized individual from the subcontractor that is proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the past performance will not be considered.

*For each project, submit the following information:

Information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror Experience Form. The offeror must address all items included in Attachment A. The Offeror may submit no more than two (2) pages per project, totaling a maximum of eight (8) pages. If more than two (2) pages are submitted for a project, only the first two (2) pages will be evaluated.

A completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, if a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment B. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o 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, Nicole Adams, via email at Nicole.A.Adams@usace.army.mil and Cory Pfenning at cory.r.pfenning@usace.army.mil, prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. 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, whether the project was submitted by the offeror or is a project that the offeror did not submit but for which there is a CPARS evaluation, 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 (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) 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 (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, 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.

Past performance information retrieved through PPIRS, 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.

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 Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in the technical proposal.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the contract’s requirements. The evaluation method that the Government will use with respect to Factor 1 – Past Performance is detailed below.

There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) recency and relevancy (including context of data), and 2) quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency and relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed** (as defined above) within ten (10) years of the date that proposals are due. The relevancy rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

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.

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the following:

The extent to which a submitted project involved manufacturing custom MV Switchgears.

o Examples of either type produced including electrical ratings, physical size, and specific requirements for why custom manufacturing was needed.

• Metal enclosed switchgear IEEE C37.20.2 and/or

• Metal Clad switchgear IEEE C37.20.3 Standard

The extent to which a submitted project involved manufacturing and design testing custom MV switchgear to IEEE C37.20.3 and/or IEEE C37.20.2 and ANSI C37.55 standards and/ or ANSI C37.57.

The extent to which a submitted project involved manufacturing and testing of custom 15kV Segregated phase and Isolated Phase Bus and connections

The extent to which a submitted project involved Quality Control processes such as ISO 9000, Three-step QC process, or a similar Quality Control process widely accepted in the industry.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the Offeror performed on its past performance projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

Based on a consideration of those two aspects for each project, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this factor. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a Neutral Confidence rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).); it is considered “Neutral.” The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

FACTOR 2 – Technical

Offers will submit the following requirements for the MV Switchgear:

1) Preliminary Drawings and Data:

a. Scaled elevation and plan views of the switchgear outline shown in the intended location to demonstrate the offeror's clear understanding of the technical requirements and the site limitations.

b. Front view of equipment with internal one-line diagram to indicate the intended location of the disconnects, breakers, and instrument transformers.

c. Physical Dimensions from existing constraints (dimensions & configuration)

d. Bus connections and configuration details to connect to existing 15 kV Bus

e. Catalog data or otherwise tabulated data to indicate ratings for all major components to be provided to include switchgear, bus, removable circuit breakers, instrument transformers, and breaker auxiliary equipment.

f. Component’s size and ratings for the following:

i. Breaker per IEC/IEEE 62271-37-013 & IEEE C37.09

ii. MV bus per IEEE C37.23

iii. MV disconnect switch per IEEE C37.20.4

iv. Metal Enclosed or Metal Clad switchgear per ANSI C37.57

2) Narrative:

a. A description of the proposed switchgear and all components required to achieve the complete switchgear technical requirements.

b. A description of the proposed switchgear interface with the existing 15 kV bus including all components and technical details.

c. Demonstrate an understanding and intent to comply with the specification technical requirements.

Evaluation Method

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely have a high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

FACTOR 3 – Small Business Commitment

a. The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the Government’s Small

Business Program objectives (see 52.219-8,-9, & FAR 19.7) as demonstrated through the amount of work (%) proposed to be performed by all small business categories in relation to the total value of the project, the types of work small businesses will be performing (particularly major project phases – design, supply, manufacturing, installation/testing) as well as the extent of the commitment (enforceable & long-term) in using the small and specific socioeconomic business firms identified in the proposal.

b. Other than small business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment to U.S.

small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established for the Government’s Small Business Program and required by FAR 52.219-8, as well as Offerors’ past performance in complying with the requirements of FAR 19.704 (12), FAR 19.705-7 and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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

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

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

c. Other than small business Offerors will be rated using the small business commitment rating method table below. NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Commitment Document – Complete and submit Attachment Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD), to identify the extent to which small business and all included socioeconomic categories will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

2) A suggested Total Small Business Commitment goal of 5% of the total contract value (through small business participation from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUB Zone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses) Government policy is to provide maximum practicable opportunity.

3) Small Business Past Performance – Submit past performance information reflecting the

Offeror’s past level of small business participation for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1, Past Performance.

If the project was performed for a Federal agency, all Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the project.

For all other projects submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, submit the following (totaling no more than 2 pages per submitted project in Factor 1):

(a) Name of the project and customer;

(b) Total dollar amount of the contract, total dollar value and percentage of the total contract that was self-performed;

(c) Total dollar amount and percentage of the total contract value that was subcontracted;

(d) Total dollar amount and percentage of the total contract value subcontracted to small business -indicating socioeconomic categories, if applicable

(e) Total dollar amount and percentage of the total contract value subcontracted to other than small businesses, and

4) In addition to the above project submission information, the Government reserves the right to review Offerors’ ISRs and SSRs from the eSRS.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the technical rating as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

a. The Government will consider the following:

i. The extent of the offeror’s proposed small business commitment expressed as a percentage of the total contract value.

ii. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the suggested small business goal. All goals are expressed as a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

A suggested small business commitment goal is assigned to this acquisition for the following socioeconomic categories:

{5%} Small Business (SB)

These goals are based on Total Contract Value.

In addition to the suggested small business goal, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are expressed as a percentage of the TOTAL contract value:

{1%} Small Disadvantaged Business {1%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {1%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {1%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {1%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

iii. The extent to which proposed small business firms, are specifically identified by name in the SBCD (DFARS 215.304(c)(1)(C)). Firms must also be listed in the subcontracting plan that is incorporated into the contract award.

iv. The extent of the commitment to use the identified small business firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non- enforceable commitments). Copies of written commitments must be provided and will not count toward page limitation.

v. The complexity and variety of the work small business including all socioeconomic categories are proposed to perform (for example: work requiring specific certifications or licenses, i.e.

welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc. in order to expand competitive pool - particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal.

vi. The extent of the offeror’s past success in complying with and demonstrating a good faith effort with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, FAR Part 19.704 (12) and 19.705-7 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart- 19.7#:~:text=19.705%2D7%20Compliance%20with%20the%20subcontracting%20plan (eSRS and CPARS evaluations).

Volume II – Price

Price Evaluation

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 Procurement Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7. SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES.

Pre-solicitation/Synopsis 15 July 2023 Advertise 05 Aug 2023 Proposals Due 19 Sept 2023 SSEB Technical Review 20 Sept 2023 – 27 Sept 2023 Discussions / Negotiations 03 Oct 2023 – 25 Oct 2023 Reevaluation 25 Oct 2023 – 27 Oct 2023 Final SSEB Board Report 09 Nov 2023 Award 27 Nov 2023

8. EVALUATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

A. Proposal Evaluation.

1. Receipt of Proposals – All proposals will be received by the PCO or designee no later than the time and date given in the RFP. Upon receipt of proposals the PCO 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 PCO will retain the original of the offeror’s proposal and associated data. The SSEB Chairperson will control all copies of the offerors’ proposals and other associated data.

2. Individual Evaluations – Each member of the SSEB shall evaluate each proposal…