W9128F24R0044 - AM0006.pdf

W9128F24R0044

W59XQG22351388

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

Big Bend Depressing Air, Fort Thompson, South Dakota BB81

The purpose of this amendment is to change the date in Section 00 22 00, Paragraph 11 - Factor 2 - Technical Approach, Subparagraph 11.1, Sentence 2 - See Block 14 Continuation Page for changes to the NTP Date. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 27

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Apr-2024

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 W9128F24R0044

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Feb-2024

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 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

26-Apr-2024

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AM0006 - UPDATES/CHANGES

25 April 2024

Solicitation No. W9128F24R0044

Date of Issue: 07 FEB 2024 Date of Receiving Proposals: 07 MAY 2024

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0006 to Section 00 22 00 Proposal Instructions, Submission Requirements, Evaluation, And Basis For Award for Depressing Air System Upgrade Big Bend, SD.

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

1. Section 00 22 00 – Proposal Instruction, Section 11 – Factor 2 – Technical Approach for subject project are hereby modified as follows (Sub-Section Submission Requirement, accordingly).

a. 00 22 00 Proposal Instruction – Technical Approach (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add proposal instruction For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified by “*Am-6” (underlining of added text and/or strikeout of deleted text).

‘11.1. 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 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 (delete) April 16, 2024 (changed to) May 20, 2024

“AM6”.

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing documents, and a receipt acknowledgement shall be provided with the SF1442. All other conditions and requirements of the specifications remain unchanged.

3. Electronic Proposal/Email. See Section 00 22 00 for how to submit electronic proposals.

4. Electric Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 07 MAY 2024, as stated in the Request For Proposal.

Attachments:

Proposal Instructions Pages listed in 1.a. above

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

25 April 2024

LDR

The following have been deleted:

AM0005 - UPDATED CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

00 22 00 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 00 22 00

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION, AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. WHO MAY SUBMIT

This solicitation for the BB Depressing Air System Replacement is a “Best Value-Tradeoff” Unrestricted Request for Proposals. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria herein and award a firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

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

3. BIDDER INQUIRY

Reference BIDDER INQUIRY (Section 00 21 00) 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:

Contracting Officer: Daniel Monahan: Daniel.D.Monahan@usace.army.mil

Contract Specialist: Lynne D. Reed: Lynne.D.Reed@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: W9128F24R0044_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

Vol. 1. TAB C Factor 3 – PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

AND EXPERIENCE

5.1.2 Volume 2: Small Business Participation

FILE NAME: W9128F24R0044_Company Name_Volume_2_Small_Business_Participation

CONTENTS:

Table 2: Small Business Participation Requirements

Location Description Vol. 2. Factor 4 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

5.1.3 Volume 3: Price Proposal, Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

FILE NAME: W9128F24R0044_Company Name_Volume_3_Price_Proposal

CONTENTS:

Table 3: Price Proposal Requirements

Location Description Vol. 3 TAB A Factor 5 - PRICE (Standard Form

1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Vol. 3 TAB B Evidence of Bondability

Vol. 3 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 a rated IAW paragraph 8.4 of this section, and Factors 2 and 3 will be rated using a color and adjectival methodology with a narrative assessment. Volume 3 (Factor 5 - Price) will be evaluated after consensus scoring Factors 1 through

3. 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 an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of 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. 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 and 3:

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.

8.4. 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 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.”

8.4.1. 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.

8.4.2. 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.

8.4.3. 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.

8.4.4. 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.

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 and 2 Factor levels of importance are noted below. Volume 3 (Price) is significantly less important to all of the combined Factor elements contained in volumes 1 and 2.

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 2nd Most Important Factor (Equal Importance to Factor 3, less important than Factor 1.)

FACTOR 3 Vol. 1. TAB C PERSONNEL

QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

2nd Most Important Factor (Equal Importance to Factor 2, less important than Factor 1.)

VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 4 Vol. 2 SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Less important than Factors 1-3

VOLUME 3 – PRICE INFORMATION

Factor/Subfactor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 5 Vol. 3 TAB A PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

Significantly less important than Factor 1-4

Note: An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the proposal to be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. Volume 3 - Price will be evaluated, in accordance with, the requirements listed in Volume 3, Factor 5 - PRICE.

9.1. Volume 1 - Proposal Requirements and Submission

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

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Technical Approach Factor 3 – Personnel Qualifications and Experience

9.2. Volume 2 – Small Business Participation

Offerors shall submit the original of their Volume 2 file containing the following factors:

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

9.3. Volume 3 - Price and Pro Forma Information

In the Volume 3 file, Offerors shall submit their price proposal along with the other information requested in Vol 3 - Price Submission Requirements.

Volume 3 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 3 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 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) narratives for projects completed or substantially complete within the past eight (8) years that best illustrates the Offeror’s experience on projects of similar function, scope, complexity, and size as this project. Each project narrative shall be no more than two (2) pages detailing the project and providing specifics as noted herein. 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. Project description must include:

i. Location.

ii. Description of work performed demonstrating Electrical & Mechanical Industrial

Installation experience.

iii. Total contract value.

iv. Specific mechanical installation experience relating to the project.

v. Date of completion.

vi. Name of customer, agency, or firm.

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

If the past performance of a subcontractor is used to meet the minimum requirements, at least two (2) of the submitted narratives should demonstrate subcontractor past performance. A binding Letter of Commitment between the prime and subcontractor must be included 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.

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.

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. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Substantially complete is defined as being 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.

For evaluation purposes, “similar” is defined as work performed in a powerhouse 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 following :

a. Mechanical Installation

1) Installation of mechanical components in powerhouse or industrial facility.

2) 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.

3) Performance of coating pipe assemblies, seismic sway bracing, and concrete anchoring for mechanical systems.

4) Performance of adequately supporting newly installed pipe assemblies and equipment installation, removal, and maintenance in large-scale projects.

5) Performance of removing and installing pipe assemblies in restricted elevated spaces near existing equipment.

b. Electrical Installation

1) Installation, and testing of electrical systems, including wiring, cable pulling, conduit installation, and field acceptance testing.

2) Experience performing electrical scope of work to include providing power to equipment such as compressors and motors via new electrical connections, and programming PLCs to interface with new and existing compressors, pressure sensors, and flow meters .

c. The total cost of one (1) of the projects must be valued at more than $250,000.00.

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

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 8.4 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 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. 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.

10.2.1. 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

Project submissions should collectively demonstrate past performance in each of the areas of work defined in Paragraph 10.1.1. A submitted project does not need to address all areas of work to be considered, but when combined, the submitted projects should address ALL of the required areas of work. Project submissions that do not meet the requirement to demonstrate the past performance of all areas of work may be rated less favorably.

Higher evaluation ratings may be given for those project examples that are similar in function, scope, complexity, dollar value, degree of subcontractor teaming, and clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to construct a project of this nature and execute the project successfully while containing costs and maintaining schedule. In addition, projects constructed for the Federal Government will be rated more favorably. Projects performed as the prime contractor may be given higher ratings.

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

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

11.1. 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 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 (delete) April 16, 2024 (changed to) May 20, 2024 “AM-6”. 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 the 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, 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 should address the activities outlined below in the areas of Management Approach, Schedule Constraints and Major Activities.

Management Approach:

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

b. Provide an organizational chart, highlighting position descriptions, qualifications, and years of experience for each team member,

c. Sub-Contractor Management,

d. Contract Close-out

Schedule Constraints:

a. Pre-Construction Submittals submitted/approved within 90 calendar days after Notice to Proceed being issued.

b. Design drawings and install procedures completed and submitted 60 days prior to the start of any required outage.

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

AND WORKING HOURS.

d. On-site work can occur at any point after pre-construction submittal approval.

e. Government and commissioning contractor operational testing requires three (3) calendar days.

Major Activities:

a. Pre-construction submittals.

b. Design drawings.

c. Demolition of existing equipment.

d. Installation of air compressors.

e. Installation of air tanks.

f. Commissioning.

11.2 Evaluation

Proposals meeting the below minimum standards will receive an “acceptable” rating on this factor.

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

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

The quality of the Offeror's PMP will be evaluated. A comprehensive PMP that addresses all requested items and demonstrates an effective plan for construction and project closeout within the specified timelines may receive higher ratings. To support this evaluation, please provide an organizational chart, highlighting position descriptions, qualifications, and years of experience for each team member. Feasible schedules that shorten outage durations may be rated more favorably.

12. FACTOR 3 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

12.1. 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 two (2) pages. In addition, a summary must be provided that clearly indicates the separate duties and responsibilities for each individual. This factor should include data on the following personnel:

Design Engineer(s) Installation Supervisor Project 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:

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

b. 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.

The proposal should clearly present the credentials of each person and show that each possesses the following qualifications.

Design Engineer(s): The Design Engineer should have a minimum five (5) years of experience over the past ten (10) years performing as an engineer on projects of similar size and scope as this project. If more than one (1) Design Engineer is to be used, roles and responsibilities must be clearly delineated, and individual resumes provided.

Installation Supervisor: The proposed Installation Supervisor should have a minimum of ten (10) years construction related experience of working as an installation supervisor on construction projects similar in size and scope as this project. Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) project descriptions that clearly illustrates the proposed Installation Supervisor’s experience. Each project does not need to address all areas of work; however, when combined, the submitted projects must address the entire scope of work defined above.

Project Manager: The proposed Project Manager should have a minimum of five (5) years of experience within the last ten (10) years performing as a Project Manager on construction projects similar in function, scope, complexity, size, and contract value as this solicitation.

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 written approval by the Contracting Officer. Before making any substitutions for these designated personnel replacement individuals for this project shall be required to have qualifications and experience meeting or exceeding those identified in the proposal.

12.2. Evaluation

Qualifications of key design and construction personnel assigned to this project will be considered. More favorable evaluation ratings may be given for personnel with past experience on projects similar to this project as well as length of experience at the position being proposed. Personnel that do not meet the requirements identified above may be rated less favorably. Prior experience on Federal construction projects is preferred and may be evaluated more favorably.

13. FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

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). Reference Paragraph “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” below for additional small business information.

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.

Offerors who propose subcontracting that exceed the required 20% goal of total contract dollars (not subcontracting dollars) will receive a more favorable evaluation than Offerors that merely meet the goal.