Amd_01_W9128F19R0015,_FR_Transformer_Supply.pdf

W59XQG82073518

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

- Extend the proposal due date from 11 Apr 2019 to 25 Apr 2019 at 2pm CST.

- Provide guidance on method of offer submission.

- Allow CPARS or PPQs for Past Performance

- Correct langauge in FAR 52.212-2 to reference transformers.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 17

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Apr-2019

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F19R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Mar-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Apr-2019

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F19R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Apr-2019 02:00 PM to 25-Apr-2019 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by reference:

52.225-2

The following have been added by full text:

OFFER SUBMISSION

1. OFFER SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software. The two

(2) volumes listed below shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” single files via AMRDEC. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission when using AMRDEC. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same AMRDEC transmission, if possible.

1.1. Table 1 - AMRDEC Proposal Submittals

Each submittal must contain Volume 1 and Volume 2 files named and structured as outlined below. Note the company name may be abbreviated.

1.1.1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information FILE NAME: W9128F19R0015_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 1. TAB A FACTOR 1 – Technical Requirements and Approach

Vol. 1. TAB B FACTOR 2 – Manufacturer’s Experience

Vol. 1. TAB C FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

1.1.2. Volume 2: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors FILE NAME: W9128F19R0015_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1449, and Contract Line Item Schedule)

1.2. AMRDEC SAFE Electronic Submission

The electronic submission process requires two steps. First, the Offeror must upload the proposal to the AMRDEC SAFE website. After document upload, the Offeror will receive a verification email from AMRDEC SAFE. To complete the submission process, the Offer must follow the emailed verification instructions for the government to be granted access to the proposal.

1.2.1. Submission Procedure

To submit proposals electronically via AMRDEC SAFE, go to the following website:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/

At the AMRDEC SAFE website, select “Non-CAC Users” in order to register, access the site, and submit proposal(s). When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, the email address for the contracting representative must be entered. Once the proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the contracting specialist will receive an email notification. For this solicitation, the recipients will be:

Tim Boyte: Timothy.B.Boyte@usace.army.mil

Nadine Catania: Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

After document submission, the Offeror will receive two (2) notifications:

A. “The files were successfully uploaded.”

B. “Your files cannot be downloaded by recipients until you verify your email address. Please check your email for further instructions.”

*** OFFERORS MUST FOLLOW THE EMAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO COMPLETE THE SUBMITTAL

PROCESS ***

1.2.2. Late Submissions

For the purposes of determining whether the proposal was received “late”, in accordance with FAR 15.208, the date and time the file(s) are uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website as identified in the AMRDEC e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s) will be the time and date the the proposal is uploaded to AMRDEC. As a reminder, the electronic submission process requires the actions of document submission to the AMRDEC SAFE website AND the Offeror must verify its email address in order for the Government to receive access to the proposal uploaded onto the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

1.2.3. AMRDEC SAFE Outage

ONLY in the unusual case that the AMRDEC website is “down” (not operational), the Offeror should email their proposal to the following individuals prior to the proposal due date and time:

Tim Boyte: Timothy.B.Boyte@usace.army.mil

Nadine Catania: Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

QUESTIONS SUBMITTAL DUE DATE

Questions are due by 4:00pm CDT on 12 April 2019. Any other questions provided after this time will not be accepted and no answers will be provided.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The application of an adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standards for a non-cost factor. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 1, 2, 3, and 5:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Consideration shall be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, 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.

Relevancy Rating Rating Definition 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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts and give a performance confidence assessment. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as indicated below.

Confidence Rating

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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FACTOR 1 – Technical Requirements and Approach

This factor evaluates several key equipment requirements of the specifications that the Government will evaluate for minimum requirements. These items include:

- Outline drawings and descriptive data (for each transformer design)

- Nameplate drawings (for each transformer design)

- Transformer delivery schedule

- Factory ISO-9001 certification

- Transformer guaranteed load & no-load losses (for each transformer design)

- Transformer guaranteed audible sound level (for each transformer design)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – These items include:

- Outline drawings and descriptive data (for each transformer design)

- Nameplate drawings (for each transformer design)

- Transformer delivery schedule

- Factory ISO-9001 certification

- Transformer guaranteed load & no-load losses (for each transformer design)

- Transformer guaranteed audible sound level (for each transformer design)

The following are the submission requirements for this Factor.

I. Drawings and Descriptive Data .

A. Submission Information for 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer. – Offeror shall provide a complete response to address each of the following items:

1. Name of the transformer manufacturer, and location of the manufacturing facility.

2. The transformer nameplate data must indicate that the proposed transformer has the following ratings:

a. Three-phase

b. 60 Hz

c. 90,000/120,000 kVa

d. 115 kV Grd. Y winding (H); 13.8 kV Delta winding (X)

e. Class ONAN/ONAF cooling

f. Percent impedance at the following kVA rating: 8.5% at 90,000 kVA

g. Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings of 550 kV for the primary winding (H), 110 kV for the secondary winding (X), 150 kV for the high-voltage neutral winding (H0).

h. The winding diagram must indicate the location of the required winding taps.

3. A sketch or drawing of the transformer which the offeror proposes to furnish, showing outline dimensions, location of bushings, control cabinet, radiators and general appearance. The transformer sketch or drawing shall be designed around the contract drawings to assure conformance with existing site conditions.

4. Description of core construction and proposed lamination grade.

5. Description of oil preservation equipment proposed.

6. Approximate quantity of oil required for the transformer.

B. Submission Information for the 230 kV, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer.– Offeror shall provide a complete response to address each of the following items:

1. Name of the transformer manufacturer, and location of the manufacturing facility.

2. The transformer nameplate data must indicate that the proposed transformer has the following ratings:

a. Three-phase

b. 60 Hz

c. 90,000/120,000 kVa

d. 230 kV Grd. Y winding (H); 13.8 kV Delta winding (X)

e. Class ONAN/ONAF cooling

f. Percent impedance at the following kVA rating: 9.0% at 90,000 kVA

g. Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings of 825 kV for the primary winding (H), 110 kV for the secondary winding (X), 150 kV for the high-voltage neutral winding (H0).

h. The winding diagram must indicate the location of the required winding taps.

3. A sketch or drawing of the transformer which the offeror proposes to furnish, showing outline dimensions, location of bushings, control cabinet, radiators and general appearance. The transformer sketch or drawing shall be designed around the contract drawings to assure conformance with existing site conditions.

4. Description of core construction and proposed lamination grade.

5. Description of oil preservation equipment proposed.

6. Approximate quantity of oil required for the transformer.

II. Quality Control

A. Submission Information - Provide documentation that demonstrates that the transformer manufacturing facility has current ISO 9001 Certification.

III. Load Losses

A. Submission Information for 115 kv, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer– Provide evidence that the load loss in kW at rated 115 kVA, when tested per SECTION 48 19 23.04 26, paragraph 2.1, is guaranteed not to exceed 200 kW.

B. Submission Information for 230 kV, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer – Provide evidence that the load loss in kW at rated 230 kVA, when tested per SECTION 48 19 23.04 26, paragraph 2.1, is guaranteed not to exceed 200 kW.

IV. No-Load Losses

A. Submission Information for 115 kV, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer– Provide evidence that the no-load loss in kW at rated 115 kVA, when tested per SECTION 48 19 23.04 26, paragraph 2.1, is guaranteed not to exceed 60 kW.

B. Submission Information for 230 kV, 90,000/120,000 Transformer– Provide evidence that the no-load loss in kW at rated 230 kVA, when tested per SECTION 48 19 23.04 26, paragraph 2.1, is guaranteed not to exceed 100 kW.

V. Audible Sound Level

A. Submission Information for the 115 kV, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer – Provide evidence that the audible sound level, when measured during the factor design test, is guaranteed not to exceed 68 dB at the100% ONAF full-load rating with all cooling fans in operation.

B. Submission Information for the 230 kV, 90,000/120,000 kVA Transformer – Provide evidence that the audible sound level, when measured during the factor design test, is guaranteed not to exceed 68 dB at the100% ONAF full-load rating with all cooling fans in operation.

VI. Schedule

A. Submission Information – The offeror shall provide a comprehensive schedule in Gantt chart format, showing a planned schedule to complete the project by the specified contract completion date. The Gantt chart should be accompanied with a narrative addressing submittals, document reviews, conference or meetings for the project to stay on schedule. All major work tasks shall be included.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 1 – The following information will be used in consideration for favorable ratings of proposals: Favorable ratings will be given to Offerors who provide complete and well thought-out drawings and data which demonstrate that the transformer(s) meet or exceed the specification requirements. Favorable rating will be given to proposals which indicate a sound product design and solid understanding of the contract with a Gantt chart that clearly reflects schedule, key milestones. Unfavorable ratings may be given to proposals which do not demonstrate that the transformer(s) meet the product requirements or the Gantt chart is incomplete and the proposal may be rejected. All the information required for the proposal must be submitted and the lack of requested information or an area of weakness may result in less than favorable ratings.

FACTOR 2 – Manufacturer’s Experience – this factor will evaluate the manufacturer’s experience, Manufacturer’s specialized experience, transformer site assembly contractor’s experience, and the manufacturer’s erecting engineer’s experience.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – The following information shall be submitted.

A. Manufacturer’s Experience

Submission Information – Provide documentation that demonstrates that the manufacturing facility of the proposed transformer has been engaged in the design and fabrication of Class II power transformers, rated greater than or equal to 115 kV and 50 MVA three-phase, maximum rating, for the last five (5) or more years. At a minimum, the documentation shall consist of a list of previously supplied transformers and include the following information in tabular format:

a. Customer/Project Name

b. Year Manufactured

c. Voltage Class

d. MVA Rating

e. Single or Three-Phase

f. Type (GSU, Auto, 2-winding, etc)

The transformer manufacturer shall be regularly engaged, for a minimum of five (5) consecutive years, in the design, manufacture, testing and assembly of transformers of similar type and rating as the ones required in these specifications. The transformer manufacturer shall have a minimum of ten (10) completed and commercially operational Class II power transformers with ratings of at least 50 MVA (three-phase maximum rating) and 115 kV. The Contractor shall submit the location and rating of the operational transformers and the year they were installed and other such information that will demonstrate the ability of the transformer manufacturer to perform the work required by these Specifications. (See “Performance Capability”, below, for the format.) Previous manufacturing experience and present manufacturing and testing facilities will be considered in determining whether the offeror is qualified to perform the work. The above information shall be submitted with the proposal for evaluation purposes.

B. Manufacturer’s Specialized Experience

Submission Information – Provide documentation that demonstrates that the manufacturing facility of the proposed transformer has been engaged in the design and fabrication of Class II power transformers which include fiber-optic temperature probes installed in the windings for the purposes of temperature monitoring and cooling control, and has a minimum of (10) completed and commercially operational transformers with these installed.

C. Transformer Site Assembly Contractor Experience

Submission Information – If the transformer site assembly contractor is other than the transformer manufacturer, provide documentation that the proposed contractor has been engaged in the site assembly and oil filling of Class II power transformers, rated greater than or equal to 115 kV and 50 MVA (three-phase, maximum rating) for the last five (5) or more years, and during that timeframe has completed a minimum of three (3) contracts. If the transformer site assembly contractor is the same as the transformer manufacturer, this required experience documentation shall be included in the manufacturer’s experience documentation.

D. Manufacturer’s Erecting Engineer

Submission Information - Provide documentation that demonstrates that the manufacturer’s proposed erecting engineer(s) is a permanent employee of the transformer manufacturer, or has been certified by the manufacturer to perform erecting engineer duties and represent the manufacturer, has been engaged in the witnessing of the field (site) assembly of similar Class II power transformers, as specified herein, for the last three (3) or more years, and has performed this work at a minimum or three (3) power generating projects.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 2 – This factor will be evaluated as follows:

A. Manufacturer’s Experience

Evaluation of Manufacturer’s Experience – The transformer manufacturing facility’s personnel experience will be rated with consideration given to the following:

a. Years of manufacturing and design experience

b. Number of Class II power transformers in the commercial operation

c. Experience in the manufacture of three-phase power transformers

The more experience that is relevant to the scope of work, the better the assigned rating.

B. Manufacturer’s Specialized Experience

Evaluation of Manufacturer’s Specialized Experience – The transformer manufacturing facility’s specialized experience with the design and fabrication of Class II power transformers which include fiber-optic temperature probes installed in the windings for the purposes of temperature monitoring and cooling control will be rated with consideration given to the following:

a. Years of manufacturing transformers with fiber-optic winding temperature probes

b. Number of Class II power transformers in commercial operation with fiber-optic temperature probes

c. Experience in the installation and programming of cooling control systems with fiber-optic temperature sensing

C. Transformer Site Assembly Contractor Experience

Evaluation of Transformer Site Assembly Contractor Experience - The transformer site assembly contractor’s experience will be rated with consideration given to the following:

a. Number of transformer site assembly contracts completed

b. Experience in the site movement of power transformers

c. Experience in the assembly of the manufacturer’s transformers being proposed

D. Manufacturer’s Erecting Engineer

Evaluation of Manufacturer’s Erecting Engineer - The transformer manufacturer’s erecting engineer’s experience will be rated with consideration given to the following:

a. Number of power generating projects for which the proposed erecting engineer has witnessed the field erection of transformers

b. Experience in the site movement of power transformers

c. Experience in the field erection of power transformers at USACE hydropower plants

The more experience that is relevant to the scope of work , the better the assigned rating.

FACTOR 3 - Past Performance. The offeror shall submit contact information and questionnaires for the past performance of three (3) projects within the past five (5) years that have included the supply of transformers, similar in size class to the ones specified for this contract. The contact information will be used during the evaluation to aid in determination of past performance. The three areas that will be evaluated include; (1) Customer Satisfaction, (2) Ability to Meet Schedule, and (3) Ability to Meet Budget.

Submission Requirements

A. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate an offerors past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the information provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for information to cure problems it finds in the proposal. The burden of providing thorough and complete Past Performance information remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested, risk a lower performance rating.

B. Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire (Form

PPQ-0, Attachment 4) or interim and final CPARS must be completed and submitted. The offerors shall complete Part 1-4 of the questionnaire and email/mail the questionnaire to at least two (2) points of contact (POC’s) for each contract. POC’s should be the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract. All POC’s shall be instructed to electronically complete Part 5-8 of the questionnaire and email to timothy.b.boyte@usace.army.mil.. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the questionnaire rests solely with the offeror and shall not be delegated to any subcontractors, team contractors, or joint venture partners.

C. Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of the proposed subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors’ past performance evaluation with the Offerors during any discussions. The Government will verify/validate information on both prime and subcontractors that an Offeror provides in its proposal. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to contact each reference to: 1) obtain authorization to release the information identified in the past performance submission and 2) provide authorization to the references to release performance information to the Government.

D. New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts

(within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offeror may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

E. The completed questionnaires may be submitted by mail or electronic mail (preferred method).

F. The completed questionnaire can be mailed to:

Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District ATTN: CENWO-CT-C, Attn: Tim Boyte 1616 Capital Ave.

Omaha, NE 68102

If an offeror has no relevant past performance history, the offeror must affirmatively state in the proposal that it possesses no relevant history directly related or similar past performance.

The Government wants to ensure a timely contract award. To that end, offerors are required to submit past performance information before the solicitation close date to enable the Government to begin contacting references.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 3 – Offerors will be evaluated on past performance based on a review of the past performance questionnaires, with the option of contacting end users using the contact information provided. In addition, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Construction Administration Support System (CCASS) databases will be queried to determine the past performance of the offerors for similar projects. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the offeror’s past performance. Offerors without any evaluations in CPARS or CCASS, or for which no Past Performance Questionnaires were returned will be assigned an Unknown Confidence rating (Neutral).

FACTOR 4 – Price.

Submission Requirements – The following items shall be included in Part II of the proposal.

1. Offeror shall submit a cover letter stating that the proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation. A proposal that does not comply with all terms, conditions, and specifications in the solicitation will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

2. Signed copy of the solicitation /contract award document, SF 1449

3. Completed Total Amounts and Unit Prices (where applicable) for CLINS 0001 – 0020 of the SF 1449

4. Completed Representations and Certifications (FAR Clause 52.209-5, 52.212-3, and

52.219-1 Alt I) and information contained in Section “Instructions to Offerors.”

5. Acknowledgement of all RFP amendments, if applicable.

6. Teaming arrangement information/documentation, if applicable.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4 - Price reasonableness and affordability will be evaluated with the following information:

A. To determine price reasonableness, the contracting officer will use techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b) as necessary. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price competition. For additional information see FAR 31.201- 3.

B. To determine affordability, proposed prices will be compared to the Independent Government Estimate.

Price will be also subjectively be evaluated for Best Value by the Government, considering total cost of the basic and all option items to reach the best value for the Government, price and other factors considered.

A. Best Value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that in the Government’s estimate provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement, Technical and Price factors considered.

ATTACHMENT 1

BLANK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEETS

NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0)

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

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:

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) Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe the client’s role in the project:

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/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.

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 to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any

Yes No default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of provision)

52.211-16 VARIATION IN QUANTITY (APR 1984)

(a) A variation in the quantity of any item called for by this contract will not be accepted unless the variation has been caused by conditions of loading, shipping, or packing, or allowances in manufacturing processes, and then only to the extent, if any, specified in paragraph (b) below.

(b) The permissible variation shall be limited to:

15 % Percent increase 15% Percent decrease This increase or decrease shall apply to the materials identified in CLIN 0009, Economic Price Adjustment.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)