W9128F23R0009 AMD 00003.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

The purpose of this amendment is to change the estimated Notice to Proceed Date, on page 34; Section 00 22 00, Evaluation Factors from May 1, 2023 to June 8, 2023.

Changes highlighted in Red text.

No other changes to terms and conditions.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Apr-2023

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 W9128F23R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Feb-2023

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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Apr-2023

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:

W9128F23R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 00 EVALUATION FACTORS

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, 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:

Lynne Reed: Lynne.R.Reed@usace.army.mil

Daniel Monahan: Daniel.D.Monahan@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. 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: W9128F22R0049_Company Name_Volume_1_Technical_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 1- Proposal Submittals

Location Description Vol. 1. TAB A Factor 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Vol. 1. TAB B Factor 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH -

WORK PLAN

Vol. 1. TAB C Factor 3 – PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

Vol. 1. TAB D Factor 4 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

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

FILE NAME: W9128F22R0049_Company Name_Volume_2_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Price Proposal Requirements

Location Description Vol. 2 TAB A Factor 5 - 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, PRICING SCHEDULE, of this solicitation.

8. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

8.1. Basis for Evaluation

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

Proposals that do not generally conform to the RFP requirements may be considered to have a “deficiency”, i.e., a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a deficiency, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the appropriate authority who will determine if there is a deficiency. If the determination is made that a deficiency exists, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected Offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision. Properly conforming proposals will be forwarded to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation. If, after award, the key personnel or subcontractors identified in the proposal are replaced, replacement personnel or sub-contractors with similar skills and experience equal to those presented in the proposal shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for approval. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitutions for these designated personnel or subcontractors.

Information obtained from owners, contract administrators, or other points of contact provided by the Offeror may affect the evaluation rating given for the factors related to the information provided.

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1. Volume 1, Factor 1 will be rated in accordance with paragraph 8.3 (Past Performance Rating) of this section, and Factors 2, 3, and 4 will be rated in accordance with paragraph 8.4 (Combined Technical/Risk Rating) of this section using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment. Volume 2 (Factor 5 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through 4. 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.

8.2. Evaluation Definitions

8.2.1 Strength

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

8.2.2 Significant Strength

An aspect of the proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

8.2.3 Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

8.2.4 Significant Weakness

A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk.

8.2.5 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.

8.2.6 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.

8.2.7 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.

8.2.8 Communications

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

8.2.9 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.

8.3. Past Performance Rating

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluations result in two (2) ratings: relevancy and overall confidence. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in design, manufacturing, and installation/construction activities that are needed to meet the contract’s requirements. The Past Performance factor submission requirements and the method that the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance is detailed in Factor 1 -Past Performance description below.

There are three (3) aspects to past performance: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). While relevancy is also evaluated individually, all past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor.

As an example of a past performance rating, a proposal evaluated as meeting the solicitation past performance criteria may be assessed ratings of “Relevant” and “Satisfactory Confidence.”

8.3.1 Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. With respect to recency, more recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than less recently completed projects. Recency criteria related to this solicitation is outlined in the Past Performance Submission Requirements section.

8.3.2 Relevancy

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by this solicitation. The relevancy aspect focuses on evaluating the applicability of the Offeror’s previous work in relation to the solicitation requirements. Consideration shall be given to the features of an Offeror’s contract history that best demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the current procurement requirements. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

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.

8.3.3 Quality

The third past performance aspect is quality. The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects considering such criteria as workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Offeror will be rated on its own performance. The Government may ask for Owners/References.

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government’s discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractors 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.

8.3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

A final performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information to 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 using the Table 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 Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. 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." On the recommendation of the Source Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is rated more favorably than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

8.4. 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, as appropriate for this solicitation. If, at any factor or subfactor level, an Offeror’s proposal is evaluated as not meeting a minimum requirement (that is, below the level of “Marginal”), this fact must be included in the rating and narrative assessment at that level and at the factor level. Therefore, an unacceptable rating at any level may be carried to the factor level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factors 2, 3, and 4:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

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

9. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the factors listed below will be basis for award. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered minimum requirements. A more favorable evaluation rating may be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Note: Volume 1 Factors level of importance are noted below. Volume 2 (Price) is significantly less important to all of the combined Factor elements contained in Volume 1.

Basis for Award – See table below for relative importance of selection factors.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTORS

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

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1. TAB B TECHNICAL APPROACH -

WORK PLAN

2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1)

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

Equal to Factor 2

FACTOR 4 Vol. 1. TAB D SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Significantly less important than Factors 1-3

VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 5 Vol. 2 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Least Important Factor. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than Price.

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 2 - Price will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements listed in paragraph 14, Volume 2, Factor 5 - PRICE.

9.1. VOLUME 1 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 1 file containing the following factors:

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

9.2. VOLUME 2 - PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

In the Volume 2 file, Offerors shall submit their price proposal along with the other information requested in Vol 2 - Price Submission Requirements.

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—COMPETETIVE ACQUISITION. Please note, portions of the winning proposal will be incorporated into the contract and are subject to disclosure notwithstanding restrictive markings.

10. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor is designed to verify the past performance of the Offeror having been regularly engaged in mechanical industrial installations, including hydropower facilities, similar in nature to this project. Emphasis should also be placed on demonstrating successful work history of planning and executing work on existing systems while minimizing outages.

10.1. Submission Requirements

10.1.1 Project Narratives

The Offeror should submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) project narratives for work completed or substantially complete within the past ten (10) years that best illustrates the Offeror’s design, manufacturing, and installation/construction experience on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project.

Substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) by the date that proposals are due. If an offeror submits a project that it represents as “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% construction progress complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 50% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project. No more than two “substantially complete” projects may be submitted by an Offeror.

The definition of “Similar” work is outlined below in paragraph 10.1.1.2. Each project narrative shall be no more than three (3) pages detailing the project and providing specifics as noted herein.

A maximum of five (5) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than five projects, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated. Each project must have involved at least one or more of these three major project phases: design, manufacture, or installation/construction of projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. NOTE: Although each project submitted need not demonstrate experience in all three major project phases (design, manufacture, and installation/construction), the Offeror’s Factor 1 proposal in its totality must demonstrate the Offeror has experience in all three major project phases: design, manufacture, and installation/construction of projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects the evaluation criteria described in the RFP.

If the past performance of a subcontractor is used to meet the minimum requirements, no more than three (3) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate subcontractor past performance. At least two projects must demonstrate prime contractor past performance.

Contractor shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture agreement if offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture.

Project narratives will include the following information:

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

b. Project name.

c. Project cost.

d. Location.

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

Include size, ratings, and number of units.

f. Specific mechanical and electrical installation experience relating to the project.

g. Date of completion.

h. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

j. Include details to address:

The facility type (dam, hydropower plant, manufacturing, etc.) where the work was performed?

Identify whether the valve, turbine, gate, or other hydraulic steel structure (HSS) was refurbished in place, refurbished off-site or replaced. If refurbished, what components were replaced and what surfaces were reworked?

Were controls replaced? If so, were they replaced in-kind, or a new control system scheme designed, and equipment provided?

Was the valve, turbine, gate/HSS operator replaced? If so, with what type of operator?

Was welding performed on the valve, turbine, gate/HSS in place?

If seals were refurbished or replaced, what material was used (bronze leaf, elastomeric, etc.)?

Were bronze bearings refurbished or replaced?

If project included valve work, include the following:

o Valve type (butterfly, spherical, etc.).

o State the nominal diameter of the valve .

o Water velocity through the valve (ft/sec).

Was valve or gate sealing system successful in sealing when closed?

Was valve or gate sealing system successful in remaining retained under flow?

Was the project successful with a functional system returned to service?

Were there any project delays or other aspects related to the job that resulted in unscheduled downtime for the equipment?

Has all post work field testing been completed?

10.1.1.1 Letter of Commitment

Offerors may use the past performance of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience in any of the three major project phases, however a binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor is required and must be included for that experience to be considered, and contain the following:

1. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

2. Signatures of both the Offeror and subcontracting entity.

The letter of commitment must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a joint venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

If a binding Letter of Commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

10.1.1.2 Similarity Definition

For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as work performed in a hydropower plant, dam outlet structure, or industrial facility for the following areas of work. A submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered relevant, but when combined, the submitted projects should address ALL of the items described in bullets “a” through “h”:

“Valves” as defined in this solicitation are 60 inches in diameter or larger.

a. In situ refurbishment of valves, turbines, or gates/HSS.

b. In situ weld repairs on valves, turbines, or gates/HSS.

c. Replacement of valve/gate operators (HPU, hydraulic cylinder operator, etc.)

d. Refurbishment, adjustment, or replacement of gate or valve seals.

e. Refurbishment or replacement of bronze bearings.

f. In situ blasting and recoating of valves or gates/HSS.

g. Successfully put back into service.

h. Mechanical installation activities, defined as:

Installation of piping to include experience welding in industrial facility, the development, and management of welding procedures, and assembly and installation of tube fittings and adaptors.

Performance of coating pipe assemblies.

Performance of adequately supporting newly installed pipe assemblies.

Performance of removing and installing pipe assemblies in confined spaces near existing equipment.

Experience rigging and transporting large equipment with cranes.

i. Electrical installation activities, defined as:

Experience performing electrical scope of work to include providing power to equipment such as pumps via new electrical connections, and relay controls to interface with pressure sensors, level sensors, position sensors, pumps, and control panel fabrication.

j. The total cost of one (1) of the projects must be valued at more than $1,000,000.

10.1.2 Performance Appraisals

The past performance information required in this solicitation shall be provided by the Offeror. Past performance information may also be obtained from questionnaires. At the Government’s discretion, past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractors 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.

10.1.2.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS)

For projects constructed for other Government or commercial entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by the respective Government or commercial entity. For each project that may be private industry work or other Government entity not covered in the CPARS database, submit Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1) completed by an owner or owner’s representative not affiliated with the Offeror’s firm. Offerors are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the Client point of contact. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available. 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 CPARS database. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the Offeror’s past performance. Firms are requested to retrieve their past performance information directly from CPARS at https://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 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 https://www.cpars.gov web page. The company DUNS number and Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) are needed to log onto CPARS. The MPIN number was selected by the company representative that registered the firm in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. If the company MPIN number is not known, contact the SAM help desk via the email link on the http://www.sam.gov help page. Please be aware, the help desk will only release the MPIN number to the company representative that originally registered the firm.

The two (2) 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.gov. 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.

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 favorable performance rating by the Government.

10.1.2.2 Past Performance Questionnaire

For any contract identified for which no CPARS is available, a Past Performance Questionnaire, Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 1), shall 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.

10.2 Evaluation Method

In accordance with Paragraph 8.3 and the following criteria, the Government will evaluate the submitted Past Performance information in the areas of recency, relevancy, and quality. Proposals not meeting the minimum three

(3) project submissions or failing to include the required project narratives for proposed subcontractors will be rated less favorably. No more than five (5) projects should be submitted. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) projects listed in the proposal will be evaluated.

If an Offeror proposes to use a Joint Venture or a subcontractor to demonstrate design, manufacturing, or installation/construction experience, the proposal may receive more weight under this sub-factor if it contains evidence of the Joint Venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects. Subcontractor past performance will not be evaluated if a binding Letter of Commitment is not included in the proposal.

10.2.1 Recency

For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially complete within the timeframe required in the Past Performance submission requirements. For the purpose of this solicitation, substantially complete is defined as being 50% construction progress complete or fully complete by the proposal submission due date. If an Offeror submits a project that is identified as “substantially complete,” the Offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 50% complete. Where applicable, at the Government’s discretion, projects submitted without the required 50% completion explanation may not be evaluated.

10.2.2 Relevancy

A single submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered, but when combined, the submitted projects should address ALL the required areas of work defined in Paragraph 10.1.1.2, Similar Definition;

note the defining elements for achieving a higher rating below. Project submissions that do not meet the requirement to demonstrate the past performance of ALL areas of work may be rated less favorably.

The Government will evaluate past performance in design, manufacturing, and installation/construction of equipment and demonstrated compliance with specification requirements for equipment of similar size, scope, and complexity as this RFP. Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that demonstrate more extensive combined experience in the areas of work defined in Paragraph 10.1.1.2, Similar Definition. In assessing the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government may rate the following more favorably:

a. In situ refurbishment of butterfly valves.

b. In situ refurbishment of butterfly valves at least 78-inch in diameter.

c. In situ weld repairs on butterfly valves.

d. HPU and hydraulic cylinder design, manufacturing, and installation for valves.

e. In situ refurbishment, adjustment, or replacement of metal seals on butterfly valves at least 78-inch in diameter.

f. Refurbishment or replacement of bronze bearings at least 20-inch in diameter and larger.

g. In situ blasting and recoating of metal surfaces in confined spaces.

h. Management of a hydropower or dam outlet works project requiring a unit outage demonstrating the Offeror’s capability to construct a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule.

i. Demonstrated “Mechanical Installation Activities” (as defined in paragraph 10.1.1.2, Similar Definition) on a hydropower or dam outlet works project.

j. Demonstrated “Electrical Installation Activities” (as defined in paragraph 10.1.1.2, Similar Definition) on a hydropower or dam outlet works project.

k. Demonstrated experience with a 5-E-Z vinyl paint system.

l. Projects constructed for the Federal Government.

m. Projects performed as the prime contractor.

Omission of requested information will result in lower ratings than submissions containing all the information identified in the Paragraph 10.1. 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.

10.2.3 Quality

The Quality evaluation will examine how well Offerors have performed on previous projects. The Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be queried to determine the past performance of the Offeror’s for similar projects. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance and may, at its discretion, contact references cited to verify the information contained therein. All aspects of an Offeror's performance history will be considered, with greater weight given to projects similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to this project as well as, projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges, where the contractor employed innovative methods to successfully resolve problems.

Projects indicating less than satisfactory performance in the areas of workmanship, timeliness, safety, customer service, adherence to budget, subcontractor management (timely payment to subs or suppliers), relations between owner and contractor, as well as the level of support provided for As-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, and warranty work may be rated less favorably. 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.

The Government places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation (CPARS, other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge). CPARS ratings will be given more weight than equivalent performance ratings for other types of evaluations. For Past Performance, an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating will be awarded when no past performance records are available. 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." Omission of rating sheets will result in lower ratings for this factor. If an evaluation is unattainable, a written explanation regarding the omission shall be provided.

10.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

Recency, relevancy, and quality past performance aspects will be used to develop an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant and recent past performance will typically be considered a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating. Evaluation of quality on more recent and relevant projects may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating.

11 FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL APPROACH – WORK PLAN

11.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive Work Plan developed specifically for this project, for evaluation purposes only, to verify Offeror’s approach to performing the required work as outlined in the specifications, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, offsite fabrication and repair, key milestones and contract required schedule constraints. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the Offeror should use an arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of June 8, 2023. The Work Plan shall be limited to no more than 25 pages; therefore, any content beyond page 25 will not be evaluated. The proposed Gantt chart schedule does not count towards the 25 page limit.

The Work Plan shall include a project schedule in Gantt Chart format and a Work Plan Narrative explanation of the management approach for the design, manufacturing, and installation/construction teams (i.e. installation, testing and commissioning team), clearly showing how the prime contractor will manage the design, manufacture, and construction of the project to ensure 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, manufacturers, suppliers, construction prime and subcontractors during the design, manufacturing, and installation/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 Work Plan shall address the activities outlined below in the areas of Gantt Chart and Work Plan Narrative.

11.1.1 Gantt Chart:

Submit a project schedule in Gantt chart format using the critical path method (MS Project or Primavera software).

Provide enough detail and tasks to adequately cover the scope of the project and the activities required to successfully complete the project as required by the solicitation.

Include the following:

1. All applicable phases of work, to include design, fabrication, shop testing, delivery, disassembly, installation, reassembly, and on-site testing/commissioning.

a. Pre-construction submittals

b. System/Routing design submittals (design data, design calculations, product data, and drawings)

c. Manufacturing, procurement, shop assembly and testing (factory tests)

d. Delivery, disassembly, installation, reassembly, to include:

i. Refurbishment of butterfly valves (i.e., on-site construction work)

ii. Removal of existing HPUs, BFV Operators, and components

iii. Installation of new HPUs, BFV Operators, and components

iv. Electrical work

e. Field tests and final acceptance tests.

f. Closeout submittals (O&M Manuals and As-Builts) and Training

2. All major milestones, to include major component delivery completion, disassembly start date, acquisition of long lead items, installation complete, reassembly complete, and on-site testing completion (The maximum allowable schedule must meet the stated schedule requirements specified in the Contract Clause 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work).

3. Address the below Schedule Constraints as specified in the solicitation documents :

a. Pre-Construction Submittals submitted/approved within the specified calendar days after Notice To

Proceed being issued,

b. Design drawings and install procedures completed and submitted within the specified calendar days prior to the start of any required outage,

c. All work requiring an outage must be completed within the projected outage window of 16Sep 2024 and 10 Feb 2025.

d. Government dewatering of the penstocks requires five (5) calendar days, typically the unit will be unwatered on a Monday and be allowed to dry for the remainder of the work week.

e. Work hours shall conform to solicitation constraints outlined in Section 01 12 00, FEDERAL

HOLIDAYS AND WORKING HOURS.

f. On-site work not requiring an outage can occur at any point after pre-construction submittal approval.

g. Include commissioning requirements outlined in Sections 22 00 00.00 26, paragraph “Field

Operational Tests” and Section 35 05 40.14 26, paragraph “Field Tests and Inspections.”

11.1.2 Work Plan Narrative:

Provide a detailed narrative for how the offer plans to execute the work, with at a minimum, the following addressed:

1. How the offeror plans to successfully complete the following project phases: Inspection, disassembly, procurement, fabrication, factory testing, installation, and on-site testing of all major features of work.

2. Likely challenges and constraints to be encountered (e.g., site restrictions, access limitations and availability, restricted resources, and phasing identified in the solicitation documents) and the offeror’s plan to deal with those challenges and constraints.

3. Description of any major equipment required and how the offeror will procure and use that equipment onsite.

4. Provide an Organizational Chart that describes the prime and all subcontractors that will be required to successfully complete the project as required by the solicitation (e.g., project management, design, manufacturing, installation/construction, including suppliers of major systems and equipment, and QC at all levels: design/manufacturing/on-site construction/etc.).

11.2 Evaluation Method

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the Offeror’s Work Plan:

a. How realistic the Offeror’s schedule durations are considering the scope of work and the Offeror’s stated plan for each work phase.

b. The extent to which the Offeror understands the scope of work and how to accomplish each project phase.

c. The extent to which the Offeror understands the challenges to be encountered during construction, such as schedule constraints, site constraints, and logistics related to long lead items/equipment; and

d. The extent to which the Offeror has a logical and well-thought out plan for dealing with challenges to be encountered during construction, to include maximizing flexibility to deal with unexpected problems.

A detailed and descriptive, project-specific Work Plan that addresses all requested items in a thorough and comprehensive manner and describes the Offeror’s approach with a supporting Gantt chart reinforcing a realistic schedule will receive greater weight than a vague and general plan. Feasible schedules that shorten outage durations may be rated more favorably.

12 FACTOR 3 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

12.1 Submission Requirements

In addition to the company’s experience submitted for Factor 1, the Offeror should submit the names and resumes for key design…