DRAFT FR MUR 00 22 00_4 Jun 2020.pdf

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 1

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

Primary Proposals Alternate Proposal Maximizing Performance Proposal Submittal Structure Organization AMRDEC SAFE Electronic Submission

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

Volume 1 Criteria Volume 2 Criteria

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Evaluation Definitions

9. BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

Basis for Award Evaluation Factors

10. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Subfactor 1A: Subfactor 1a: Turbine Company Experience Subfactor 1B: Generator Company Experience

11. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

Subfactor 2A: Turbine Efficiency Subfactor 2B: Existing Turbine Performance Modification Approach Subfactor 2C: Cavitation Requirements Subfactor 2D: Stator Winding Losses Subfactor 2E: Stator Winding Manufacturing and Installation Process

12. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

13. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 4 – PROJECT EXECUTION

Schedule Project Management Plan

Personnel Qualifications

14. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

15. VOLUME 2, FACTOR 6 – PRICE PROPOSAL

16. COMPETITIVE RANGE

17. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

18. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

19. DEBRIEFING

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 2

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 original 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

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically via the DODSafe 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. Each proposal shall be submitted as “SEPARATE” compressed files via DODSafe. Each compressed file shall contain the individual files comprising the respective volume, as outlined in paragraph 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 below.

Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip for compression. Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same DODSafe transmission, if possible.

Primary Proposals

Offerors shall submit a PRIMARY PROPOSAL that meets or exceeds the minimum performance requirements of these Specifications through the replacement, modification or refurbishment of components identified in 00 10 00 of this solicitation (or by reference). Reference Contract Line Item numbers 0001 to 0087 and corresponding Price

Items.

Alternate Proposal

In addition to the submittal of a PRIMARY PROPOSAL, each offeror may submit up to two (2) ALTERNATE

Proposals. ALTERNATE PROPOSALS should offer performance improvements beyond the PRIMARY

PROPOSAL. Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the

Government. Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined.

Maximizing Performance

In structuring ALTERNATE PROPOSALS, offerors are encouraged to offer replacements and/or modifications of existing turbine or generator components that will maximize the value of the refurbished turbine/generator unit. Proposal Submittal Structure

Each proposal shall be submitted as two (2) separate compressed files containing the individual documents required for Volume 1 (Technical) and Volume 2 (Price). The PRIMARY PROPOSAL shall be clearly labeled “PRIMARY

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 3

PROPOSAL”. As applicable, each ALTERNATE PROPOSAL shall be clearly labeled “ALTERNATE

PROPOSAL 1” and “ALTERNATE PROPOSAL 2.”. There must be a PRIMARY PROPOSAL to submit an

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL. Each submittal must contain Volume 1 (technical proposal) and Volume 2 (price) files named and structured as outlined below. Note the company name may be abbreviated.

5.4.1. Compression File Name

Each proposal will be submitted as compressed files named in accordance with the following:

PRIMARY PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_PRIMARY_PROPOSAL_Vol 1 Tech

PRIMARY PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_PRIMARY_PROPOSAL_Vol 2 Price

If alternate proposals are submitted, each proposal will be submitted with the compressed file names

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_ALT_PROPOSAL_1_Vol 1 Tech

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_ALT_PROPOSAL_1_Vol 2 Price

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_ALT_PROPOSAL_2_Vol 1 Tech

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_ALT_PROPOSAL_2_Vol 2 Price

5.4.2. Factor File Names

Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information

The required submission content for Volume 1 will be saved in a single compressed file named in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1 above. The compressed file will contain individual files for each factor. Files names for the individual factor files must follow the convention outlined below.

Example Individual File Names: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_V1_Factor 1A

W9128F20R0003_Company Name_V1_Factor 1B

W9128F20R0003_Company Name_V1_Factor 3

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

The required submission content for Volume 2 will be saved in a single compressed file named in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1 above. The compressed file will contain individual files for document required for Factor 6, Price..

Files names for the individual factor files must follow the convention outlined below.

Example Individual File Names: W9128F20R0003_Company Name_V2_Cover Letter

W9128F20R0003_Company Name_V2_SF_1442

Organization

The proposal shall be organized in accordance with the structure outlined below.

5.5.1. Volume 1Technical Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description

FACTOR 1 EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 1A Turbine Company Experience

FACTOR 1B Generator Company Experience

FACTOR 2 TECHNICAL

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 4

FACTOR 2A Turbine Efficiency

FACTOR 2B Existing Turbine Performance

Modification Approach

FACTOR 2C Cavitation Requirements

FACTOR 2D Stator Winding Losses

VFACTOR 2E Stator Winding Manufacturing and

Installation Details

FACTOR 3 Past Performance

FACTOR 4 Project Execution

FACTOR 5 Small Business Participation

5.5.2. Volume 2 - Price

Location Description

FACTOR 6 PRICE

FACTOR 6 Cover Letter

Standard Form 1442 (00 10 00-1 and

00 10 00-2)

CLIN Pricing Schedule

Section 00 45 00

DOD SAFE Electronic Submission

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

5.6.1. Submission Procedure

To submit proposals electronically via DOD SAFE, go to the following website: https://safe.apps.mil/about.php

At the DOD 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 DOD SAFE website, the email address for the contracting representative must be entered. Once the proposal is submitted via the DOD SAFE website, the contracting specialist will receive an email notification. For this solicitation, the recipients will be:

Jessica Jackson: Jessica.R.Jackson@usace.army.mil

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

After document submission, the offeror will receive one of 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 ***

file://Coe-nwoa7002oma/sisgml/Sisgml/Jobs/FRE2/Project%20Delivery%20Team/6.0%20Acquisition/6.2%20%20Source%20Selection/Jessica.R.Jackson@usace.army.mil mailto:Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 5

5.6.2. 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 DOD SAFE website as identif ied in the DOD SAFE e-mail sent to the Contract Specialist(s) will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. As a reminder, the electronic submission process requires the actions of document submission to the DOD SAFE website

AND the offeror must verify its email address in order for the Government to receive access to the proposal uploaded onto the DOD SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

5.6.3. DOD SAFE Outage

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

Jessica Jackson: Jessica.R.Jackson@usace.army.mil

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

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Electronic proposals shall be received by the USACE Contracting Activity no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Offers will NOT be publicly opened. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of proposals.

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.

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.

Volume 1 Criteria

Within Volume 1, Technical Proposal, illustrations, tables, drawings, and charts should be limited to 11” x 17” a minimum binding edge margin of at least 0.75 inches and shall be counted toward the 200 page limit. Pages exceeding the page limit will not be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point.) A smaller font type may be used on charts, graphs, figures, diagrams and schematics to accommodate a “make it fit” software capability; however all text must be legible and easily read. Each volume should also contain a Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Appendices, and List of Acronyms and at the bottom left side of each page the volume number shall be included. This list of acronyms should include all acronyms appearing in the volume.

Volume 2 Criteria

Volume 2, Price Proposal,shall contain the Cover Letter, Standard Form 1442 (00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00-2), CLIN

Pricing Schedule (Section 00 10 00), and Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of offerors (Section

00 45 00). Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman.

file://Coe-nwoa7002oma/sisgml/Sisgml/Jobs/FRE2/Project%20Delivery%20Team/6.0%20Acquisition/6.2%20%20Source%20Selection/Jessica.R.Jackson@usace.army.mil mailto:Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 6

Volume 2 shall include a Cover Letter stating that the PRIMARY proposal complies completely with all terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation. A PRIMARY proposal that does not comply with all terms, conditions, and specifications in the solicitation will be automatically rejected and not considered for award.

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 PRIMARY 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.

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 Contracting Officer, 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 sub-contractors 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 sub-contractors.

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 through 6 will be rated using an adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment and Factor 6 (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

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 7 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 sub factor level. If, at any factor or sub factor 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 through 6:

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.

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 construction, 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.

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 8

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.

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 3, 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."

Note that ratings will be applied at the Factor level (on an Individual and Consensus basis). The Factor 1, 2, 4, and 5 rating will be expressed as: FACTOR-LEVEL COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING of _____(insert color-word adjectival rating)____. Factor 3 (Past Performance) receives a “Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.”

Factor 6 will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis.

9. BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

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.

Basis for Award

A firm fixed-price contract will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) determines to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 9 the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each of the Technical Factors (Experience, Technical, Past

Performance, Project Execution, Small Business Participation). Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. Proposals are intended to be evaluated and an award made without discussions with offerors, unless discussions are determined to be necessary.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Experience, Technical, Past Performance, Project Execution, Small Business Participation, and Price. Factors 1 through 4 will be of equal importance, and more important than Factor 5. Factors 1 through 4, combined with Factor 5, will be significantly more important than Factor 6.

Evaluation Factors

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE

Factor/ Sub factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Volume 1 EXPERIENCE

Factors 1-4 are of equal importance and more important than Factor 5

Sub factor 1A Vol. 1. FACTOR

1A Turbine Company Experience

All Sub factors are of equal importance

Sub factor 1B Vol. 1. FACTOR

1B Generator Company Experience

All Sub factors are of equal importance

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL

Factor/ Sub factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 2 Volume 1 TECHNICAL

Factors 1-4 are of equal importance and more important than Factor 5

Sub factor 2A

Vol. 1. FACTOR

2A Turbine Efficiency

All Sub factors are of equal importance

Sub factor 2B Vol. 1. FACTOR

2B

Existing Turbine Performance

Modification Approach

All Sub factors are of equal importance

Sub factor 2C Vol. 1. FACTOR

2C Cavitation Requirements

All Sub factors are of equal importance

Sub factor 2D Vol. 1. FACTOR

2D Stator Winding Losses

All Sub factors are of equal importance

Sub factor 2E Vol. 1. FACTOR

2E

Stator Winding Manufacturing and

Installation Details

All Sub factors are of equal importance

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 3 Volume 1 Past Performance

Factors 1-4 are of equal importance and more important

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 10

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 4 – PROJECT EXECUTION

factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 4 Volume 1 Project Execution

Factors 1-4 are of equal importance and more important

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 5 Volume 1 Small Business Participation Less important than Volume 1, Factors 1-4

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Sub factor Location Description Relative Importance

FACTOR 6 Volume 2 PRICE All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Price is the least important factor.

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, subfactor, 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.

10. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

Sub factor 1A: Sub factor 1a: Turbine Company Experience

The offeror must provide, in detail, the experience of your organization or proposed team on contracts of similar type and complexity, including at least 3, but no more than 5, examples of projects with 150” diameter or greater

Francis turbine runners or pump-turbines relevant to the proposed contract which your organization or proposed team has completed within the last 20 years, or which is currently under contract and has AT LEAST one (1) unit installed and completed as of the due date of this solicitation. The projects selected should represent work similar to that proposed for the Fort Randall Power Plant.

The offeror shall identify themselves as engaged in the design, manufacture, and installation of Francis turbine runners or pump-turbines for hydroelectric generators. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work while minimizing outages and achieving consensus among customers 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 specific role in the project during current or previous ownership.

b. Project name.

c. Project cost.

d. Project description must include:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating Electrical & Mechanical Industrial Installation experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific turbine rehabilitation experience with Francis turbines 150” diameter or greater relating to the project.

v. Specific design engineering experience with Francis turbine design and evaluating hydro turbine design.

vi. Date of completion or current status if not complete.

vii. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 11

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

Evaluation Method: Turbine Company Experience

The offeror’s experience with Francis turbine or pump-turbine projects similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than five (5) projects shall be submitted. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) listed in the proposal will be evaluated. Evaluation will be based on the project narratives provided in the Offeror’s proposal. The proposal must meet all of the above minimum criteria to receive an "acceptable" rating on this factor.

Higher evaluation ratings will 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 successfully complete a project of this nature.

Projects that demonstrate multiple concurrent unit outages may be rated more favorably. Offeror’s with more recent demonstrated experience or projects completed as U.S. Federal Firm Fixed-Price may be evaluated more favorably.

Failure to provide the requested information may result in lower ratings.

Sub factor 1B: Generator Company Experience

Offeror shall submit:

a. A minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) separate salient pole hydro generator rewind project narratives relevant to the proposed contract completed within the last 10 years, or which is currently under contract and has AT LEAST one (1) unit installed and completed as of the due date of this solicitation which best illustrate the experience of the contractor on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Multiple features of work may be included in each project example. Project narratives shall be no more than 5 pages per project.

o Include design, manufacturing, installation and testing of complete stator windings o Have the same or similar insulation system as the proposed to be supplied under this solicitation, o Be of separate design and/or location (i.e., not three (3) contracts in one powerhouse).

o Two (2) projects must include a stator core replacement.

o Two (2) projects must include multi-turn coil stator winding construction.

o Include machine ratings of:

The rated RPM, MW, and KV of the generator

Stator bore diameter

Stator height o Ancillary features, if applicable, included with the rewind project, such as:

Pole refurbishment

Keybar modifications

Frame modifications or replacement

Core re-centering and translation to establish new unit center

Sole plate modifications

Continuously stacked core versus segmented

Unique design features or challenges

Evaluation Method: Generator Company Experience

This factor is designed to verify that the offeror has been engaged in the design, manufacture, installation, and testing of stator windings and stator core laminations for hydroelectric generators of at least 30 MVA and 13.2 kV

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 12 generator terminal voltage rating. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work while applying company skills and capabilities to provide value to the end user. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) listed in the proposal will be evaluated. Project narratives are limited to five (5) pages, only the first five (5) pages in the proposal will be evaluated.

The proposal that do not meet the minimum standards may be rated less favorably. Proposals demonstrating more recent experience, more extensive detailed experience, greater complexity of design or installation, greater MVA ratings, more complete rehabilitations, and/or unique solutions or adjustments to unique problems may be evaluated more favorably. Projects that demonstrate multiple concurrent unit outages may be rated more favorably.

11. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

Sub factor 2A: Turbine Efficiency

The offeror shall provide turbine prototype hydraulic efficiency, in accordance with Technical Specification section

48 13 13.01 26, paragraph 1.5.2 and Table 00115-1 below for the purpose of determining the weighted turbine efficiency (Ewa):

Table 00115-1 Offeror Guarantee/Turbine Efficiency

Prototype

Net

Head

Emin

Pmin

Hp

Epeak

Ppeak

Hp

Emax

Pmax

Hp

97 29,700 49,000 53,600

110 35,900 59,200 64,800

120 37,800 64,900 71,200

130 41,600 64,900 71,200

136 44,200 64,900 71,200

142 47,500 64,900 71,200

For each prototype net head, definitions of column headers in Table 00115-1:

1) Emin is the turbine efficiency at minimum power output for a given head.

2) Pmin, is the minimum power output for a given head.

3) Epeak is the peak turbine efficiency for a given head.

4) Ppeak is the peak generator power output/Contractor guaranteed power.

5) Emax is the turbine efficiency at maximum power output for a given head.

6) Pmax is the maximum power output for a given head.

The weighted efficiencies of the turbine will be evaluated using the Contractor supplied information requested in

Tables 00115-1 for this sub factor. The following formula shall be used for determining the weighted efficiency:

Weighted Efficiency (FR) = 0.005*Emin97 + 0.022*Emin110 + 0.049*Emin120 + 0.022*Emin130 +

0.002*Emin136 + 0.000*Emin142 + 0.025*Ep97 + 0.110*Ep110 + 0.245*Ep120 + 0.110*Ep130 + 0.010*Ep136 +

0.000*Ep142 + 0.020*Emax97 + 0.088*Emax110 + 0.196*Emax120 + 0.088*Emax130 + 0.008*Emax136 +

0.000*Emax142

The offeror shall provide the following information:

a. The offeror shall provide the completed Table 00115-1 and the calculated turbine weighted efficiency.

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 13

b. Predicted Hill chart for the proposed Fort Randall prototype turbine with cavitation limits shown. The turbine prototype efficiencies shall be stepped up using ½ Moody.

c. The offeror shall provide a narrative description of the offeror’s hydraulic design methodology for the Fort

Randall turbines. The narrative shall:

1) Discuss the process by which the offeror arrived at the proposal’s efficiency guarantee values and predicted Hill chart.

2) Describe the methodology that will be used to develop the hydraulic design.

3) Explain the steps that will be taken to ensure the cavitation, stability, hydraulic down thrust and runaway speed guarantees/requirements are not compromised.

4) Discuss the offeror’s experience and success in using the design methodology described above.

Evaluation Method: Turbine Efficiency

The turbine weighted efficiency proposed by the offeror as defined in Technical Specifications section 48 13 13.01

26 sub-paragraph 1.5.2 will be evaluated along with the required narrative description. The proposal must demonstrate a weighted efficiency of 90.5% to receive an "acceptable" rating on this factor. Higher weighted efficiency ratings may be evaluated more favorably. Each 0.1% weighted efficiency value proposed above the contract minimum of 90.5% will be evaluated with a cost benefit of $350,000 for evaluation purposes only. Hill charts based on physical models of similar specific speed turbine runners to Fort Randall may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals with thorough and robust descriptions of sound hydraulic design methodology may be evaluated more favorably.

Sub factor 2B: Existing Turbine Performance Modification Approach

The offeror shall submit their approach to modify existing turbine components, per the minimum requirements of

Technical Specification Section 48 13 13.01 26, paragraph 1.1.3. Submissions must:

a. Include Drawings and Descriptive Data. Drawings as a minimum shall include the following (where applicable show axial-cross section cuts, plan and elevation views, general construction and overall and principal dimensions, elevations, and a distinction between existing and modified items):

1) Turbine runner and rotating parts modifications

2) Non-rotating parts modifications, as allowed in the specifications

b. Cleary show proposed modifications to existing components. The offeror shall clearly identify the turbine modifications that are required to achieve the turbine performance offered in the offeror’s proposal. The offeror is required to provide all that is necessary to furnish and install a rehabilitated turbine which is homologous to the offeror’s model turbine and which achieves the performance stated in the specification and in the offeror’s proposal. In the event that offeror proposed modifications impact other systems or components, the offeror shall modify or replace components or systems in such a manner as to maintain the functions and functionality which existed prior to commencing the upgrade.

c. Complete and submit with the proposal the Other Specific Prototype Turbine Information, Sub factor

Form 2B, included as Appendix 2.

Evaluation Method: Existing Turbine Performance Modification Approach

The quality of the offeror’s approach to modifying existing components, per the minimum requirements of

Technical Specification section 48 13 13.01 26, paragraph 1.1.3, including drawings and descriptive data will be evaluated. Proposals with additional level of detail and relevant engineering solutions may be rated more favorably.

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 14

Increasing levels of clarity, completeness, description, detail, success (in using the submitted design methodology), and certainty (in demonstrating that the guaranteed efficiency level is obtainable) may result in a higher rating due to less risk to the Government. Thorough completion of the Sub factor Form 2B demonstrating sound engineering solutions may be evaluated more favorably. Offeror’s failing to provide sufficient information and engineering solutions will be evaluated less favorably.

11.3 Sub factor 2C: Cavitation Requirements

The offeror shall submit guarantee/Cavitation Limits Table 00115-2 in accordance with the Technical Specifications section 48 13 13.01 26, paragraph 1.5.3.1, corresponding to the minimum tailwater limits identified in Table 2 of

Technical Specifications section 48 13 13.01 26, paragraph 1.5.3.1.

Table 00115-2 Offeror Guarantee/Cavitation Limits

Prototype

Net Head (ft)

Max Power

(Hp)

Min Power

(Hp)

For each prototype net head:

a. Max Power is the maximum turbine power output.

b. Min Power is the minimum turbine power output.

Evaluation Method: Cavitation Requirements

The offeror’s submittal of Guarantee/Cavitation Limits will be evaluated. The offeror’s maximum power guarantees shall not be less than the limits in Technical Specification section 48 13 13.01 26 sub-paragraph 1.5.3.1, and the offeror’s minimum power guarantees shall not be more than the limits in Technical Specification section 48 13

13.01 26 sub-paragraph 1.5.3.1. Proposals must meet the technical specification requirements to receive an

“acceptable” factor rating. Additional margin out of designed operating range may not necessarily be evaluated more favorably.

Sub factor 2D: Stator Winding Losses

The offeror shall present guaranteed combined DC I2R (R corrected to 75 °C) loss and stray load loss for their proposed winding in kW at 52,000 kVA, 0.9 power factor.

Evaluation Method: Stator Winding Losses

Offeror’s proposal as the losses relate to the original winding losses as defined in technical specification Section 48

13 16.00 26 sub-paragraph 1.4.3 in performance of this sub factor will be evaluated to determine acceptability.

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 15

Lower stator winding losses demonstrated by providing sufficient data and demonstrating sound engineering solutions may be rated more favorably..

Subfactor 2E: Stator Winding Manufacturing and Installation Process

The offeror shall provide a complete description of the stator winding manufacturing and installation process. The stator winding manufacturing process shall include details such as coil insulation system, including strand, turn and groundwall insulation material and thickness; cross sectional dimensions; designed dielectric stress of the ground-wall insulation at rated voltage; and the groundwall insulation application method (hand-wound, machine wound with/without scarf joint, other). The offeror shall identify the location and name(s) of the owning interest in the winding manufacturing facility. The stator winding installation process shall include details of side packing system, wedging system including type, dimensions, and materials of wedges, total number of wedges per slot, number of check wedges per slot and end wedge securing method, spring deflection measurement method, brazing method and quality assurance procedures. Reference Technical Specification Section 48 13 16.00 26.

Evaluation Method: Stator Winding Manufacturing and Installation Process

Quality of the proposed technical approach for design of the windings as they relate to the requirements of the specifications and drawings will be evaluated. The quality of the offeror’s detail of stator winding manufacturing and installation process per specifications Section 48 13 16.00 26 will be evaluated. Proposals that demonstrate more detail and attention to manufacturing quality and consistency may be rated more favorably.

12. Volume 1, Factor 3 – Past Performance

The offeror shall provide All Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings for all Corps of Engineer turbine and unit rewind 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 1A: Turbine Company

Experience and Factor 1B: Generator Company Experience. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation shall be provided to explain why.

For each project cited in Factor 1A and 1B 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.

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.

http://www.ppirs.gov/ http://www.ppirs.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/

Major Unit Rehab, Ft Randall Dam, SD FRE2

DOCUMENT 00 22 00 Page 16

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. The Government may not contact all of the identified client references / points of contact.

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.

Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified in Factor 1A and 1B for which no CPARS is available, a 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 performance information to the Government.

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.