Amd 04_W9128F21R0003_FP Digital Governors Install Solicitation.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Summary of Changes for updates to Section 00 22 00 of the solicitation, w hich are higlighted.

Proposal Due date has been changed from the 08 Dec 2020 to 11 Dec 2020 at 2pm (CST).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Dec-2020

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F21R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Nov-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03-Dec-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F21R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 08-Dec-2020 02:00 PM to 11-Dec-2020 02:00 PM.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

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

5.1. Table 1 - Proposal Submittals

6. SUBMISSION DEADLINE

7. PROPOSAL CRITERIA

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

8.1. Evaluation Definitions

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

9.1. VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

9.2. VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

10. FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

10.1. Submission Requirements

10.2. Evaluation

11. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

11.1. Submission Requirements

11.2. Evaluation Method

12. FACTOR 3 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

12.1. Submission Requirements

12.2. Evaluation

13. FACTOR 4- PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

13.1. Submission Requirements

13.2. Evaluation

14. FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

15. VOLUME 2 - PRICE

15.1. Submission Requirements

16. EVALUATION OF PRICE

16.1. Evaluated Price

16.2. Price Reasonableness

16.3. Unbalanced Pricing

17. COMPETITIVE RANGE

18. CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

19. FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

20. DEBRIEFING

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 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, they 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 email directly to:

Tim Boyte: Timothy.B.Boyte@usace.army.mil Nadine Catania: Nadine.L.Catania@usace.army.mil 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. Offerors may use compression utilities such as 7-Zip, WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Offerors are encouraged to send both files in the same email, if possible.

5.1. Table 1 - Proposal Submittals

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

5.1.1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information FILE NAME: W9128F21R0003_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 1. TAB A FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE 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: W9128F21R0003_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A FACTOR 6 - 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

5.2 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 received via email by the Contract Specialist(s) will be the time and date the Government received the proposal.

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.

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 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, 3, 4 & 5 will be 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.

8.1. 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 “Satisfactory”), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and at the factor level. Therefore, an unsatisfactory 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.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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 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. Technical Factors 1 – 5, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 6 - Price.

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

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

Factor 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)

FACTOR 4 Vol. 1 TAB D PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

Equal to Factor 3

FACTOR 5 Vol.1 TAB E SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION Significantly less important than Factors 1-4

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor 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.

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

9.1. VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

Offerors shall submit Volume 1 file containing Factors 1-5.

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

9.2. VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Offerors shall submit the 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— COMPETITIVE 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

10.1. Submission Requirements

Offeror shall submit three (3) 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. 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. For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as work performed in a powerhouse or industrial facility removing and installing the following items:

a. Electrical installations at a powerhouse or similar industrial facility; and

b. Experience creating or modifying electrical design drawings; and

c. Instrumentation and control cabling; and

d. Enclosure; and

e. Modifications of existing hydraulic control systems of 200 psi or greater; and

f. Reverse engineering: measurement, creation of shop drawings, and fabrication of unique hydraulic control valve components. (Demonstrate effective implementation of components with tolerances equal to or smaller than 0.0001 inches.); and

g. Testing and rehabilitation of governor pump controls

This factor is designed to verify the experience of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in electrical and mechanical industrial installations. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work on existing systems 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 Electrical & Mechanical Industrial

Installation experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific electrical installation experience relating to the project.

v. Specific hydraulic system engineering experience (or successful sub-contracted work).

vi. Date of completion.

vii. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

10.2. Evaluation

The Construction Contractor's experience in construction of facilities similar to this project will be evaluated. No more than three (3) projects should be submitted. If more than three projects are submitted, only the first three 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 three (3) project narratives demonstrating Industrial Installation 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 will be given for those project examples that are similar in function, scope, and size to this project, and clearly demonstrate a contractor’s capabilities to construct 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 construction similarity. Projects that do not meet the similarity 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

Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide contact information and questionnaires for the past performance of three projects within the past five years for projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. The contact information will be used at the discretion of the source selection team 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 should 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. Firms are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at http://www.cpars.gov. CPARS is an electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major Federal performance reporting systems.

Logging onto CPARS will require the following:

All Department of Defense (DoD) employees (military and civilian), including DoD Contractors that are working on site (military/government facilities) or contractors working offsite using Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) are required to use certificates from DoD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to access CPARS. If the contractor does not work on site or with GFE the contractor is encouraged to obtain and use a certificate from an External Certificate Authority (ECA). Contractors can use the PKI login category if they have PKI. External Certificate Authorities (ECAs) and Interim External Certificate Authorities (IECAs) provide digital certificates to the DoD's private industry partners, contractors using their own equipment or working in non-government facilities, allied partners, and other agencies. Additional information about the PKI certificate is at https://www.cpars.gov/pki_info.htm.

Contractors will also need their DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by whoever registered your firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. If the contractors not know their MPIN number, they will need to contact the Federal Service Desk as indicated on link: https://www.fsd.gov/. Please be aware that the Federal Service Desk will only release the MPIN number to the person who 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.

11.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified in Factor 1 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.

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.

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.

11.2. Evaluation Method

The Government will evaluate only 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 Rating Sheets 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.

Offerors will be evaluated on past performance by review of the past performance questionnaires, with the option of contacting end users using the contact information provided.

In addition, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be queried to determine the past performance of the Offerors for similar projects. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the Offeror’s past performance. Offerors without any evaluations in CPARS, or for which no Past Performance Questionnaires were returned will be assigned a neutral rating.

12. FACTOR 3 - Technical Approach Submission Requirements The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive 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 February 18, 2021. The PMP shall be limited to no more than 50 pages; therefore, any content beyond page 50 will not be evaluated.

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 address the activities outlined below in the areas of Management Approach, Schedule Constraints and Major Activities.

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

d. Contract Close-out

12.1.2. Schedule Constraints:

a. Preliminary site visit for reverse engineering of valves shall take place far enough in advance for inspection, shop drawing creation, and fabrication of any possible needed distributing valve parts. Demonstrate understanding of typical machine shop fabrication time and required submittal coordination.

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

c. Total outage time for all units will not exceed 285 days. On-site installation work must begin no later than 1 June 2021.

d. Government dewatering of hydroelectric unit requires 1 calendar days

e. Government pre-operational testing requires 7 calendar days

f. Government and commissioning contractor operational testing requires 7 calendar days

g. The contractor shall commence work in accordance with SECTION 01 12 00, Paragraph 1.7, ORDER OF WORK. . Units may not be out of service concurrently during this project. Units must be turned back over to the government in time for the 14-day testing period to take place by the end of the outage period. Testing periods will not be concurrent.

12.1.3. Major Activities:

a. Pre-construction submittals

b. Preliminary distributing valve inspection

c. Government dewatering of hydroelectric unit

d. Demolition

e. Distributing valve removal, refurbishment, repair plan submittal, and installation

f. Surface preparation for encapsulation and repainting

g. Installation

h. Government pre-operational testing

i. Commissioning by the Government and others.

12.2. Evaluation

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

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

b. Organizational Chart

c. The submitted schedule complies with and includes all of the listed Schedule Constraints and identifies all of the listed Major Features 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

13.1. Submission Requirements

The Offeror should submit the names and resumes for key design and construction personnel that will be assigned to this project. Each resume shall be limited to 2 pages. In addition, a summary must be provide that clearly indicates the separate duties and responsibilities for each individual. This factor should include data on the following personnel:

Electrical Designer Mechanical Designer Installation Supervisor Site Safety and Health Officer Quality Control Manager

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each meets the requirements listed below. Each resume shall include the following information:

Name, assignment for this project, and company employing the person.

Past project experience (including what role or capacity the individual served on each project), as well as the dates (month and year) employed on each project in that capacity, the monetary size of each project cited as experience, and a point of contact familiar with each project. Resumes should be listed in reverse chronological order, with the latest experience listed first, and all time gaps on each resume fully explained.

Prior experience on Federal construction projects and projects of this type and size is preferred and will be evaluated more favorably. The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person, and show that each possesses the following qualifications. With the exception of the Site Safety and Health Officer and Quality Control Manager, no individual may be designated for more than one position. 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.

Electrical Industrial Designer: Electrical Industrial Design experience shall be defined as experience to develop point to point removal and installation wiring diagrams based off of a control schematic at an industrial facility. Successful demonstration will include:

a. Resume of Proposed Electrical Industrial Designer demonstrating electrical industrial design experience for the past five (5) years. Information provided can be from the prime contractor and/or a key subcontractor.

b. Project Narratives with description of Electrical Industrial Design experience on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), prior projects for key or primary electrical designer in which they were directly involved with the electrical industrial design (as defined above) in the past six (6) years. All of the submitted “prior projects” must be designed and constructed prior to the time of proposal submission. “Project Narrative” on each project cited for experience shall include:

i. Name of the firm the designer worked for.

ii. Name of the prime contractor (if the designer worked for a subcontractor).

iii. Contract number and a description of the designer’s specific role on the project.

iv. Project name.

v. Project description shall include:

a) Location.

b) Description of work performed demonstrating Electrical Industrial Design experience.

c) Amount of the electrical industrial design fee of the project.

d) Total contract amount.

e) Specific electrical design experience aspects of the project.

f) Date of completion.

g) Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

Mechanical Industrial Design: Mechanical design experience shall be defined as experience in the modification of existing hydraulic control systems of 200 psi or greater. Successful demonstration will include:

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

b. Project Narratives with description of Mechanical Industrial Design experience on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), prior projects for key or primary mechanical designer in which they were directly involved with the mechanical industrial design (as defined above) in the past six (6) years. All of the submitted “prior projects” must be designed and constructed prior to the time of proposal submission. “Project Narrative” on each project cited for experience shall include:

i. Name of the firm the designer worked for.

ii. Name of the prime contractor (if the designer worked for a subcontractor).

iii. Contract number and a description of the designer’s specific role on the project.

iv. Project name.

v. Project description shall include:

a) Location.

b) Description of work performed demonstrating Mechanical Industrial Design experience.

c) Amount of the mechanical industrial design fee of the project.

d) Total contract amount.

e) Specific mechanical design experience aspects of the project.

f) Date of completion.

g) Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

Installation Supervisor: The Installation Supervisor must be technically qualified to supervise the disassembly and installation of digital governors. Offeror shall submit three (3) project narratives that clearly illustrates the proposed Installation Supervisor’s experience with the:

a. Disassembly and installation of hydraulic systems within the last five (5) years; and

b. Disassembly and installation of electrical equipment within the last five (5) years.

Site Safety & Health Officer: 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: 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 Ft Peck Digital Governor Installation project.

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.

13.2. Evaluation

Qualifications of key design and construction personnel assigned to this project will be considered. More favorable evaluation ratings will be given for past experience in projects similar to this one and longevity of experience at the position being proposed. 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. Prior experience on design build will be evaluated more favorably.

Minimum standards to receive an “acceptable” rating:

a. Resumes of Key Electrical and Mechanical designers illustrating design experience for the past five (5) years; and

b. Project Narratives with description of Electrical and Mechanical Industrial Design experience on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), prior projects for key or primary electrical & mechanical designers; and

c. The electrical and mechanical design fee amount of at least one of the projects must be more than $10,000; and

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

e. All of the prior projects submitted must be design and constructed prior to time of proposal submission.

f. The Installation Supervisor successfully demonstrated experience in disassembly and installation of hydraulic systems and electrical equipment within the last 5 years; and

g. The SSHO has a minimum of 5 years safety work on similar projects; and demonstrated successful completion of the 30 hour OSHA construction safety class (or equivalent) within the last 5 years; and demonstrated at least 24 hours of formal safety training every year for the past 5 years

h. The QCM demonstrated successful completion of the “Construction Quality Management for Contractors”: course within the last 5 years; and has a minimum of 2 years’ experience in the last 5 years on projects similar in size and scope to the Ft Peck Digital Governor Installation project.

14. FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

14.1 Submission Requirement

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. All offerors (both large and small businesses) must complete and submit a Small Business Participation Proposal Worksheet (Attachment 2).

The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition; or alternatively may consider the percentage of ‘planned subcontracting’ dollars.

14.2 Evaluation

Offerors who propose subcontracting that exceed the required 15% goal of total contract dollars (not subcontracting dollars) will receive a more favorable evaluation than Offerors that merely meet the goal. Offerors will be evaluated on their proposed utilization and participation of small business concerns as team members, subcontractors, and/or suppliers in the resulting contract. The Offeror’s will be evaluated on its commitments that small business concerns will have maximum subcontracting opportunities. Enforceable commitments to use small business concerns will receive more favorable evaluations than non-enforceable commitments. Offerors will be evaluated favorably if they provide assurances that small business clauses and terms are included in subcontracts.

15. Volume 2 - Price

15.1. Submission Requirements

15.1.1. The Offeror should submit the following information in Volume 2 (Price). Volume 2 shall contain the following information:

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

(2) Section 00 10 00, Solicitation/Contract Form and Pricing Schedule. The Offeror shall include the completed SF Form 1442 (Pages 00 10 00-1 and 00 10 00-2) of the RFP, along with the completed CLIN Pricing Schedule.

15.1.2. Section 00 45 00, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.

The information requested in this Section needs to be fully completed…