Am0002_Clean.pdf

Offers 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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Amendment No. 0002

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions

Date for receipt of Proposals is 06 March 2019 at 2:00 pm (local time)

Government Point of Contact: Jessica Jackson, Contract Specialist (402) 995-2052

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVE.

OMAHA, NE 68102-4901

See Item 6

W9128F19R0019

02/08/2019

12/21/2018

02/08/2019

Am #0002 - 2 (Continuation SF 30)

08 February 2019 Solicitation No. W9128F19R0019

Date of Issue: 21 Dec 2018 New Date of Receiving Proposals: 06 March 2019

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0002 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Construction of Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

1. The specifications and drawings for subject project are hereby modified as follows (revise all specification indices, attachment lists, and drawing indices accordingly).

a. Specifications. (Descriptive Changes.)

(1) Section 00 10 00, SF1442 and CLIN Pricing Schedule, delete date and time of receiving proposals shown and substitute "06 March 2019" at "2:00".

(2) Section 00 21 00 Page 17, paragraph 1.18.4 delete “Offers shall be submitted electronically to Jessica Jackson, Contract Specialist, at email Jessica.R.Jackson@usace.army.mil@usace.army.mil no later than the time and date as specified in Section 00 10 00, Page 1.” and substitute “See Section 00 22 00 paragraph 5 for submission instructions.”

(3) Section 01 30 00.24 Page 14, delete paragraph 1.24 LEAD and substitute “Not Used”.

(4) Section 09 97 02.00 26 Page 23, delete paragraph 3.5 PAINTING SCHEDULE and replace it with the attached revised schedule, which now includes wicket gates.

Am #0002 - 3 (Continuation SF 30)

3.5 PAINTING SCHEDULES

SYSTEM NO. 5-E-Z

Items or surfaces to be coated:

DO NOT PAINT STAINLESS STEEL

*EXCEPT WHERE CARBON STEEL

INTERFACES STAINLESS STEEL. PROVIDE

A 2-3 INCH OVERLAP OF PAINT FROM

CARBON STEEL TO STAINLESS STEEL. DO

NOT APPLY ANY ZINC PRIMER TO THE

STAINLESS STEEL.

Carbon Steel to be painted:

-Stay ring (not facing plates) -Stay vanes -Wicket gates (not including end faces) -Bottom ring (not facing plates) -Headcovers (waterside only) -Turbine hub and nose -Turbine blades -Discharge ring (above and below stainless steel overlay weld metal).

-Draft tube, including new TMP mounts

SURFACE

PREPARATION

1st COAT 2nd COAT 3rd COAT 4th COAT

White metal blast cleaning

Vinyl zinc-rich VZ-108d (double spray coat)

Gray Vinyl V-766e (double spray coat)

White Vinyl V-766e (double spray coat)

Gray Vinyl V-766e (double spray coat)

b. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment.

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added

Section 00 22 00 Section 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION, SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION,

AND BASIS FOR AWARD AND BASIS FOR AWARD

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged. All other conditions and requirements of the request for proposal remain unchanged.

3. Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 06 March 2019, as stated in the Request For Proposal.

Attachment: Specifications listed in 1.b above

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

08 Feb 2019

MFS/2184

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 1 Am0002

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION, AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

4. FORMAT SIZE OF SUBMISSIONS

5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

Table 1 - Proposal Submittal Format

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Evaluation Definitions

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

10. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

11. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation Method

12. FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Submission Requirements Evaluation

13. FACTOR 4- PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements Evaluation

14. FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Submission Evaluation

15. VOLUME 2 - PRICE

Submission Requirements

16. EVALUATION OF PRICE

Evaluated Price Price Reasonableness Unbalanced Pricing Price Realism

17. COMPETITIVE RANGE

18. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

19. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

20. DEBRIEFING

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 2 Am0002

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 3 Am0002

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS,

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation is for Full and Open competition.

All Offerors, including joint ventures, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM).

There will be no public opening. All proposals submitted will become, upon receipt, the property of the U.S.

Government and will not be returned. After evaluation of proposals, the proposal will be retained for the official contract file. Electronic copies of the awardees’ proposal will be submitted to the Field and Area Offices in support of their contract administration functions.

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate compliance with the proposal submission requirements.

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

Reference Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.20.1, BIDDER INQUIRY for bidder question instructions and procedures.

4. FORMAT SIZE OF SUBMISSIONS

All portions (other than an organization chart, Gantt charts or drawings (if provided)) shall be in 8-1/2" x 11" format.

5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors shall submit their proposal on a CD to the USACE Contracting Activity at the address shown in Block 8 of Standard Form 1442. Due to heightened security at Government installations, those Offerors who have their proposals hand-delivered shall contact Jessica Jackson, Contract Specialist at (402) 995-2052 prior to delivering to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District ATTN: CENWO-CT-C (Jackson) 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102-4901

Table 1 - Proposal Submittal Format

Each submittal must contain Volume 1 and Volume 2 files named and structured as outlined below. Note the company name may be abbreviated. 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 on the CD. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size on the CD. Offerors are required to have both files on the same CD.

5.1.1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information

FILE NAME: W9128F19R0019_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 1. TAB A FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 4 Am0002

Vol. 1. TAB B FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Vol. 1. TAB C FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Vol. 1 TAB D FACTOR 4 – PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Vol. 1 TAB E FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

5.1.2. Volume 2: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F19R0019_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Vol. 2 TAB B Evidence of Bondability

Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Proposals shall be received by the USACE Contracting Activity no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

Offerors shall submit a proposal that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of these Specifications through the replacement, modification or refurbishment of components identified in 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

All proposals and documentation which have been properly submitted will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the factors stated in the solicitation to select the responsible Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity of all proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the instructions in the solicitation.

Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a deficiency. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected Offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision.

Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

If, after award, the key personnel or subcontractors identified in the proposal are replaced, replacement personnel or sub-contractors with similar skills and experience equal to those presented in the proposal shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for approval. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or subcontractors.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact provided by the Offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors being evaluated by those discussions.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. Factors 1, 3, 4 & 5 will be

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 5 Am0002 rated using an adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment, Factor 2 will be a rated IAW paragraph 7.4.9 of this section, and Volume 2 (Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through 5. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror's ability to perform the resultant contract successfully.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine ratings supported by narratives, and to identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposed approach in each proposal.

Evaluation Definitions.

8.1.1. Strength. A substantive aspect, attribute, or specific item in the proposal that exceeds the solicitation requirements and enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

8.1.2. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

8.1.3. 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.

8.1.4. Omission. A failure to provide information required by the solicitation and depending on the nature and extent of the omission it may be evaluated as a weakness, a significant weakness or a deficiency.

8.1.5. Clarification. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award without discussions is anticipated, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

8.1.6. Communications. Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

8.1.7. Discussions. Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition and take place after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are tailored to each Offeror's proposal, and shall be conducted by the Contracting Officer with each Offeror within the competitive range.

8.1.8. Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The application of a scale of colors and adjectival description will be used in conjunction with narrative to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor.

Ratings will be applied at the factor and subfactor level. If, at any factor or subfactor level, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of “Marginal”), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and at the factor level. Therefore, an unacceptable rating at any level may be carried to the factor level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 1, 3, 4 & 5:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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.

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 6 Am0002

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

8.1.9. Past Performance Evaluation. 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.

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. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as indicated below.

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 7 Am0002

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.

For Volume 1, Factor 2, Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are otherwise unavailable. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The areas to be evaluated include Evaluation Factors which will be evaluated based on the color and adjectival method of evaluation. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered to be minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: Volume 1 Factors level of importance are noted below. Volume 2 (Price) is significantly less important to all of the combined Factor elements contained in Volume 1.

Basis for Award – Volume 1 Technical Factors 1 – 5 when combined are significantly more important than Volume 2 Factor 6, Price.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor/ Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 1 Vol. 1. TAB A EXPERIENCE Most Important Factor

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B PAST PERFORMANCE Equal to Factor 1

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C TECHNICAL APPROACH 2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1 & 2, more important than Factors 4 &5)

FACTOR 4 Vol. 1 TAB D PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

3nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1, 2,&3, more important than Factor 5)

FACTOR 5 Vol. 1 TAB E SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION 4th Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1 - 4)

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 6 Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Price is the least important factor.

N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Evidence of Bondability Not Rated

N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 2 - Price will be evaluated in accordance the requirements listed in paragraph 15, EVALUATION OF PRICE.

VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 1 file containing Factors 1-5.

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 8 Am0002

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Technical Approach Factor 4 – Personnel Qualifications and Experience Factor 5 – Small Business Participation

VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Offerors shall submit the original of their price proposal, along with the other information requested below, in their Volume 2 file.

Volume 2 shall include 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.

Volume 2 shall contain the Solicitation/Contract Form and Pricing Schedule (Section 00 10 00), Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Section 00 45 00), Pre-Award Survey Information and Small Business Information.

Please Note: The Government will not pay for the provision of any information nor compensate any Offeror for the development of the required information outlined in the solicitation required for inclusion in the Offeror’s proposal.

All proposals shall contain the information stated herein. Proposal clarity, organization (as defined in this solicitation) and cross-referencing is mandatory. No material (information not part of the proposal) shall be incorporated by reference.

Note: Offerors that do not want the data submitted below disclosed by the Government must follow the procedure specified in Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS— COMPETETIVE ACQUISITION. Please note, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

10. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Submission Requirements This factor is designed to verify the experience of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in cavitation repair work. Offeror shall submit no more than five (5) examples of construction projects performed in the past six (6) years which best illustrate the experience of the construction contractor on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Cavitation repair of turbine discharge rings of at least 24 inches in width and at least 150 inches in diameter with the runner blades in place that required welders qualified in accordance with one of the following codes: (1) Section 4, Part C, of AWS D1.1, or (2) Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), or (3) AWS B2.1 (for cladding) will be considered fully relevant.

Each project summary should consist of a one or two page narrative of the example project, discussing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. Information to include in the “Project Narrative” is outlined at the end of this paragraph.

For projects that are not considered fully relevant, the government will evaluate which projects demonstrate various aspects of relevancy. Offerors are encouraged to submit a combination of projects demonstrating experience with as many relevant aspects as possible.

For evaluation purposes, relevant is defined as work that has one or more aspects as listed below (in descending order of importance):

a. Cavitation repair with runner and blades in place.

b. Cavitation repair of Kaplan turbine discharge rings at least 24 inches wide and at least 150 inches in diameter.

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 9 Am0002

c. Cavitation repair removal of damaged carbon steel

d. Repairs requiring welders qualified in accordance with the codes mentioned above.

e. Cavitation repair utilizing a stainless steel weldment overlay

f. If Subcontractor or Joint Venture experience is submitted for evaluation purposes, project examples that demonstrate experience working with those Subcontractors and/or JV Partners are considered more relevant.

Submit the information for the discharge ring repair experiences on the Attachment 1 NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire. Experience need not be on the same project.

Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work while minimizing outages and achieving consensus among customers (local power plant as well as transmission owners) on the development and execution of detailed and effective construction planning. “Project Narrative” on each project cited for experience shall include:

a. Contract number and Offeror’s and/or major subcontractor’s specific role in the project.

b. Project name.

c. Project cost.

d. Project description must include:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating cavitation repair experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific welding experience relating to the project.

v. Date of completion.

vi. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

vii. Point of Contact (POC) information for the customer, agency, or firm, including name, title, email, and telephone number.

Evaluation

For evaluation purposes, the Offeror’s experience is defined as cavitation repair of similar scope and complexity to work required in this solicitation. No more than five (5) projects demonstrating relevant experience should be submitted. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five listed in the proposal will be evaluated.

Evaluation will be based on the project summaries provided in the Offeror’s proposal. The proposal must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an "acceptable" rating on this factor:

a. Submission of no more than at least (5) project narratives demonstrating welding experience on projects as described in the bulleted items above. For this factor, each of the bulleted items listed above are not required to be contained in each project submitted; rather the Offeror must collectively demonstrate experience in each criteria over all projects submitted; and

b. The total cost of one of the projects must be valued at more than $250,000.00.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that are more similar in function, scope, and size to this project, and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to complete a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. In addition, those offers that include Federal Government construction projects and design/build projects will be rated more favorably than those without such experience. Projects that do not meet the relevancy criteria identified in Paragraph 10.1 may be rated lower than those projects meeting the stated criteria. Further, such characteristics as size, complexity, number and types of trades employed, and whether the Federal Government was the customer may be indicative of similarity. Projects that are not yet complete will be rated lower than completed projects. Projects showing significant cost and time growth will be rated less favorably than those that maintain the contract completion date and the original award amount. Projects cited which indicate the Offeror was not the prime contractor will be evaluated less favorably.

Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than submissions containing all the information identified in the paragraph above.

11. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 10 Am0002

Submission Requirements The Offeror shall provide contact information and questionnaires found in Attachment 1, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire, for the past performance of five (5) projects within the past six (6) years for the projects submitted under Factor 1, Experience. The contact information will be used at the discretion of the source selection authority to aid in the determining past performance.

11.1.1. Past Performance Rating Submission

All Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings for all Corps of Engineer projects constructed by the Offeror in the past ten years should be submitted. In addition, a performance evaluation shall be submitted for all projects listed in Factor 1. For projects cited in Factor 1 which were constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that Government entity. For each project cited in Factor 1 that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit Form PPQ-0 (a blank copy is attached to this section) completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with the Offeror’s firm. Offeror should explain any past performance resulting in significant cost and/or time growth. The Government reserves the right to obtain copies of all CPARS records contained in the Corps of Engineers CPARS database. Firms are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at http://www.ppirs.gov.

PPIRS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major Federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto PPIRS will require the following:

All firms must have purchased and installed a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate. Firms without this certificate cannot access company information. Additional information about the PKI certificate is posted in red at the top, center portion, of the http://www.ppirs.gov web page. The company DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) are needed to log onto PPIRS. The MPIN number was selected by the company representative that registered the firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. If the company MPIN number is not known, contact the SAM help desk via the email link on the http://www.sam.gov help page. Please be aware, the help desk will only release the MPIN number to the company representative that originally registered the firm.

The two additional ways to obtain a copy of CPARS evaluations are as follows: (1) Contact the Government point of contact for the project in question to request a copy of the evaluation, or (2) Apply for “Contractor Corporate Senior Management Representative” access on the CPARS web site: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/. This access is issued to only one individual within the firm, typically a member of senior management. In addition to the firm’s completed CPARS performance evaluations, the status of evaluations which have not yet been completed is also available. Logon information and access instructions will be emailed upon receipt of the application request. Of note, CPARS access provides only CPARS information, whereas PPIRS access provides evaluations prepared by non-DOD Federal agencies, as well as the DOD agencies which use CPARS. Also of note, the DoD requires a PKI certificate to access the CPARS system.

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided.

The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to rectify problems identified 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 rejection or less than acceptable performance rating by the Government.

11.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified in Factor 1 for which no CPARS is available, one (1) Past Performance Questionnaire, Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) should be completed and submitted with the proposal.

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 the 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

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 11 Am0002 performance information to the Government.

11.1.3. 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.

The completed questionnaires should be submitted with the proposal.

If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that the firm possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

Evaluation Method The Government will evaluate the information provided. The evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as quality, timeliness, safety, responsiveness to customer concerns, and adherence to budget. Higher evaluation ratings may be awarded for excellent evaluations.

In descending order, lower ratings may be given for past evaluations of Above Average, Average, Marginal, and Unacceptable. If an Offeror has no past performance ratings in CPARS, other Construction Performance Rating Systems, Performance Evaluation Worksheets including Form PPQ-0, or no other past performance is available, a neutral rating will be given. CPARS ratings will be given more weight than equivalent performance ratings for other types of evaluations. The Government may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history, but will attribute more significance to work that was similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to this project. Omission of past performance information for Factor 2 projects will result in lower ratings for this factor. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation shall be provided to explain why.

12. FACTOR 3 – Technical Approach

Submission Requirements The Offeror shall provide a summarized Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for this project for evaluation purposes only to verify Offeror’s experience in understanding in the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, offsite fabrication and repair, key milestones and contract required schedule constraints. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use an arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of June 20, 2019. The PMP shall be limited to no more than 25 single-spaced pages; therefore, any content beyond page 25 will not be evaluated. Reasonably aggressive schedules determined to be of benefit to the government may be rated more favorably.

The PMP should include an explanation of the management approach for the design/construction team, clearly showing how the prime contractor will manage both the design and construction of the project to insure a well-coordinated quality product, completed on time and with a minimum amount of contract modifications. The management approach should include an organizational chart and address the interaction between the designers, construction prime and subcontractors during the design phase and construction phases of the project, including controls and revisions to the accepted design, requests for information, and shop drawings/submittal reviews.

At a minimum, the PMP shall briefly address how the Contractor will coordinate and complete the activities outlined below in the areas of Management Approach, Schedule Constraints and Major Activities.

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 12 Am0002

12.1.1. Management Approach:

a. Include any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation documents

b. Organizational Chart

c. Sub-Contractor Management

12.1.2. Schedule Constraints:

a. Pre-Construction Submittals submitted/approved within 85 calendar days after Notice To Proceed being issued

b. Work on the three (3) units will take place during the three (3) sequential annual maintenance periods outlined below. Work must take place during specified periods. Only 1 unit will be available per annual maintenance outage period.

c. Mobilization may begin prior to the specified unit availability date.

d. The unit will be dewatered and considered available to the contractor by the start dates listed below.

e. The contractor shall commence work with Unit 3 during the first year outage period of 18 Nov 2019 – 15

Nov 2020.

f. Work on Unit 2 will be completed during the subsequent outage period of 16 Nov 2020 – 15 May 2021.

g. Work on Unit 1 must be completed during the period of 10 Jan 2022 - 15 May 2022.

h. Units must have final measurements completed and be turned back over to the government by the end of the respective outage period (15 May).

12.1.3. Major Activities:

a. Pre-construction submittals

b. Turbine maintenance platform work (welding mount/lugs)

c. Fabrication of a template for discharge ring profile

d. Non-destructive testing, verifying blade integrity

e. Design and installation of shaft rotation device (include details for thrust bearing high lift pump)

f. Pre-repair measurements and centerline of repair identification

g. Machining discharge ring for stainless overlay

h. Ultrasonic testing, locating of horizontal and vertical stiffeners

i. Installation of anchoring in discharge ring

j. Spot repair mapping and excavation of water passage

k. Additional pre-repair measurements;

l. Non-destructive testing, prior to stainless steel overlay;

m. Stainless steel overlay welding;

n. Rough machining of stainless steel overlay;

o. Check for (and epoxy grout) any voids, plug grout holes;

Non-destructive testing, after stainless steel overlay;

p. Finish machining of stainless steel overlay;

q. Non-destructive testing, after final machining;

r. Spot-repairs to discharge ring, blades, and hub;

s. Post-repair measurements;

t. Abrasive-blasting and painting.

Evaluation

Proposal must meet all the following minimum standards to receive an “acceptable” on this factor:

a. Management Approach, including any special work restrictions or phasing identified in the solicitation document

b. Organizational Chart

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 13 Am0002

c. Subcontractor Management

d. The submitted schedule complies with and includes all of the listed Schedule Constraints and identifies all of the listed Major Activities of Work above.

The quality of the Offeror's PMP will be evaluated. Higher evaluation ratings will be awarded for a PMP that addresses all requested items in a thorough and comprehensive manner, and demonstrates an effective plan for construction and project close-out.

13. FACTOR 4- PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

In addition to the company’s experience, the Offeror should submit the names and resumes for key design and construction personnel that will be assigned to this project. A summary must be provided that clearly indicates the education, separate duties, responsibilities, and recent (within the past five years) experience for each individual.

Resumes should be listed in reverse chronological order, with the latest experience listed first, and all time gaps on each resume fully explained. At a minimum key personnel should include:

Weld Engineer(s), maximum of 3 submitted.

Site Superintendent Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) Quality Control Manager (QCM) List of Welders, maximum of 10

Limit resume information furnished to 2 pages and contain the following, at a minimum:

(1) Worker’s name, assignment for this project, and company employing the person.

(2) Project name, period of performance on worksite.

(3) Description of primary project feature(s).

(4) Name and telephone number of point of contact for project owner.

(5) Name and telephone number of job supervisor.

(6) Position occupied on each assignment and time assigned to each position, including current position.

(7) Description of duties and responsibilities for each position occupied.

(8) Professional registrations, licenses, certifications, accomplishments, or other pertinent information that demonstrates their suitability for the work assigned to them.

(9) A statement of assurance that the proposed key staff, and/or consultants will be available for the duration of the contract.

Prior experience on Federal construction projects and projects of this type and size is preferred and will be evaluated more favorably. With the exception of the Site Safety and Health Officer and Quality Control Manager, no individual may be designated for more than one position. The Site Safety and Health Officer and the Quality Control Manager may be the same individual if they meet the qualifications for both positions outlined below.

Weld Engineer: Weld Engineer experience shall be defined as experience designing and implementing weld procedures. Up to three weld engineers may be submitted. Experience with stainless steel and overlay (cladding) will be evaluated more favorably. Successful demonstration will include:

a. Resume of Proposed Weld Engineer experience demonstrating weld design experience for the past five (5) years. Information provided can be from the prime contractor and/or a key subcontractor and

b. Experience working with similar weld processes described in these specifications. For example, weld engineers with experience overlaying stainless steel, using an automatic welding machine, and other works as described in these specifications will be evaluated more favorably.

Site Superintendent: The Site Superintendent must be technically qualified to supervise the machining and overlay welding within the discharge ring. Offeror shall submit three (3) project narratives that clearly illustrates the proposed Site Superintendent’s experience with the:

a. Weld repairs of hydropower generation equipment within the last five (5) years; and

b. Experience with repairs similar in scope to the work required by these specifications. For example repairs

Cavitation Repair, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP56

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 14 Am0002 with Kaplan runner in-place, stainless steel overlay/cladding of carbon steel, and similar work as described in these specifications, will be evaluated more favorably.

Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO): Offeror shall submit a resume illustrating the work experience requirements and documentation of the following training requirements.

a. A minimum of five (5) years safety work on similar industrial projects; and

b. 30-hour OSHA construction safety class or equivalent within the last five (5) years; and

c. An average of at least 24 hours of formal safety training every year for the past five (5) years.

Quality Control Manager (QCM): Offeror shall submit documentation of the following training requirements.

a. Must have completed the course entitled “Construction Quality Management for Contractors” within the last five (5) years.

b. Must have a minimum of 2 years of experience over the past 5 years performing as a CQC System Manager on projects similar in size and scope as the work required by these specifications. For example repairs with Kaplan runner in-place, stainless steel overlay/cladding of carbon steel, and similar work as described in these specifications, will be evaluated more favorably.

List of Welders: Offeror shall submit documentation of up to a maximum of ten (10) welders who are qualified to do this work. Include certifications and experience that detail:

a. Types of welding qualifications, work continuation records, work experience, as well as positions and materials, and

b. Operation of an automatic welding machine within the last five (5) years, and

c. Qualified to overlay stainless steel.

If, after award, the key personnel identified in the proposal are not able to be utilized on this project, replacement personnel with similar skills and experience shall be presented for acceptance and approval by the Contracting Officer. Replacement individuals for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel.

Evaluation Qualifications of key design and construction personnel assigned to this project will be considered and more favorable evaluation ratings will be given for past experience in projects more similar to this project. In addition, higher ratings may also be given for a higher number of relevant years' experience. Personnel meeting the qualification requirements identified above will be given higher evaluation ratings than those not meeting the qualifications. Prior experience on Federal construction projects is preferred and will be evaluated more favorably.

More favorable evaluations will be given to proposals with identifying a higher quantity (up to 10) of qualified welders. Minimum standards to receive an “acceptable” rating:

a. Resumes key personnel illustrating experience outlined above for the past five (5) years; and

b. The total cost of at least one of the project must be valued at more than $250,000; and

c. The Site Superintendent successfully demonstrated experience in weld repair of hydropower equipment within the last 5 years; and…