SDVOSB Energy SATOC.12-R-0031.RFIs Set 3.pdf

W912BV-12-R-0031, RFIs 57-63

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers

SDVOSB IDIQ SATOC for Construction of Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation & Mechanical/Electrical

Projects in the SW Division of the USACE (“SDVOSB Energy SATOC”)

SEED TO: Wind Turbine Installation at

Council Grove Lake, KS, John Redmond Lake, KS and Canton Lake, OK (“Wind Turbine Installation at Various Lakes”)

Solicitation (RFI) #: W912BV-12-R-0031

Answers to RFIs Set 3

RFI 57: How much of this project can be sub-contracted?

ANSWER: 25%.

RFI 58: The facility at Council Grove Lake has more than one electrical service. One is a 200 AMP single phase which supplies the office and one or more of the out buildings and the other is a 100 AMP single phase which serves the generator building and flood gate. Are both services to be connected to the turbine?

ANSWER: No, only the 200 Amp electric service to the project office.

RFI 59: Is it possible to get the load calculations for each facility?

ANSWER: No load calcs are available.

RFI 60: Net Metering Agreement for Westar requires a 30 day review cycle once received. Will USACE assume the risk to start the construction of the wind turbines prior to receiving formal approval from the utility to hook up the wind turbines to the utility or do we need to plan to start construction after a utility agreement is reached?

ANSWER: Yes.

RFI 61: The proposal submission in section 3 – Page 19 of 66 paragraph 3.5.1 states that 1 CD of the price proposal is to be turned in with in 24hrs. However amendment 3 – paragraph 3.5.1 – Page 6 of 14 states that a CD of the price proposal is to be turned in, but does not mention or note that 24hrs is allowed. Please clarify if it is acceptable to turn the Volume 2 price proposal CD with in 24hrs.

ANSWER: Please send the CD with the Price Proposal (at the same time).

RFI 62: Contrary to the other current SATOC solicitations the proposal submission requirements for this SATOC do not mention any reference to the Designer(s) Specialized Experience. Since this is a Design- Build contract shouldn't the Government require the Specialized Experience of the Designer(s)? If so, W912BV-12-R-0031, RFIs 57-63 should we submit up to five (5) additional Specialized Experience and Past Performance Questionnaire for the Designer(s) as well? Please advise.

ANSWER: The Government agrees that the designer is an important component to the Prime’s team and as such up to three (3) Experience Information forms can be submitted for that role.

Past Performance Questionnaires for those projects should also be submitted. See new Paragraph

5.1.1.5 in Revised Section 5.

RFI 63: Is there any possibility of getting a site plan showing the government property lines at the three sites. We are trying to make sure that our wind turbine is 250' from any obstructions and 20' above the tallest and need that information to determine proper location.

ANSWER: See attached drawings.

Prepared by:

Pamela Moody Contract Specialist 918-669-7457 Pamela.s.moody@usace.army.mil

DATE: 4/9/2012

Attachments:

1. 12-R-0031 Revised Section 00 22 11 dated 4/9/2012

2. Real Estate Project Map: Morris County, KS, 1.5 miles NW of Council Grove and 23 miles NW of Emporia, dated 11-19-74

3. Project Ownership Map: Dewey-Blaine County, OK, 2 Miles NW of Canton and 20 Miles SW of Fairview, dated 21 Nov 1951

4. Real Estate Project May: Coffey and Lyon County, KS, 2 Miles NW of Burlington and 4.5 miles SE of Strawn, dated 10-27-71 mailto:Pamela.s.moody@usace.army.mil�

W912BV-12-R-0031 Revised Section 00 22 11 4/9/2012

REVISED SECTION 00 22 11 – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS OF AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

(DATED 4/9/2012)

REVISIONS IN BOLD

SECTION 1

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 This is a competitive solicitation for a Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single-Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) which will be awarded using the Best Value Trade-Off Process.

1.2 This SATOC contract is set-aside for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB). The estimated amount of the contract is $25 million. The contract shall have a base period plus up to four option periods. The Government intends to award one IDIQ SATOC contract.

1.3 This SATOC IDIQ contract may include renewable energy projects utilizing all types of technology including, but not limited to, solar photo voltaic arrays (both ground and roof mounted); 1KW to 50 KW wind turbines; ground source heat pumps; geothermal; Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems with associated controls;

pump repair/replacement (all types, from small sump pumps to large flood control pumps); valve replacement;

electric motors; variable frequency drives; motor soft start systems; switchgear; and wiring. Location of projects could be anywhere in the USACE Southwestern Division area of responsibility, which includes all of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas; and portions of Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and New Mexico. The Offeror/Contractor must have the resources to work on multiple projects at multiple locations simultaneously. Experience with renewable energy technologies, mechanical, and electrical projects is required. Most projects will be Design-Build type projects with the Contractor responsible for the design of the entire project. A geotechnical investigation or geothermal well test boreholes may be required to be used as a basis for design.

1.4 The contractor shall perform in accordance with the attached Scope of Work, with the Scope of Work provided with each Task Order, and with strict accordance with the terms and conditions specified herein.

1.5 WHO CAN SUBMIT

1.5.1 Firms formally organized as construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors.

1.5.2 Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The Offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal which concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning the past or present organizational conflicts of interest relating to work on this project. In the same statement, and if applicable, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the Government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Office will make a decision whether to terminate the contract.

SECTION 2 -- RESERVED

SECTION 3

3. 0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1 Each Offeror must submit a Technical Proposal that includes the following:

3.1.1.1 Performance Capability for SDVOSB Energy SATOC demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the type of projects described in Paragraph 1.3. The Government will evaluate the Proposal in accordance with the criteria described herein.

3.1.1.2 Performance Capability for Seed Task Order described below. The Government will evaluate the Proposal in accordance with the criteria described herein.

SEED TASK ORDER: Install Wind Turbines – Council Grove Lake, KS; John Redmond Lake, KS; and Canton Lake, OK.

The required work includes installing a small, 2200-2500 Watt capacity wind turbine at each Project Office at the following locations: Council Grove Lake, KS; John Redmond Lake, KS; and Canton Lake, OK. The wind turbines shall be pole-mounted, securely anchored with bolts to a concrete pad, and shall connect to the utility power system through an inverter and net meter in accordance with the most recent edition of NFPA 70, National Electric Code. All underground electrical shall be buried to a minimum depth of 18” in schedule 80 PVC sized per the NEC.

Conduits shall transition to rigid galvanized steel where exposed. Any exterior enclosures shall be NEMA 3R rated.

Any anchors shall be installed in concrete. The contractor shall propose the optimum location and height for the wind turbines in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, coordinate with project office personnel, and proceed with installation after receiving approval from the Contracting Officer.

3.1.3 Each Offeror must submit a Seed Task Order Price Proposal for the Seed Task Order described above. The Government will evaluate the Seed Order Price Proposal in accordance with the criteria described herein.

3.1.4 The Technical Proposal and Seed Task Order Price Proposal must be submitted as separate volumes. Ensure that the outside of each separate volume is clearly marked to indicate its contents; and the identity of the Offeror.

Additionally, clearly identify the “original” price proposal and the “original” technical proposal on the outside cover.

3.1.5 Both Proposals must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals.

3.1.6 No dollar amounts from the Seed Task Order Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical Proposal.

3.1.7 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal (Volume 1). Do not merely cross-reference similar material in the Seed Task Order Price Proposal, or vice versa. Also, do not include links to websites in lieu of incorporating information into your proposal.

3.1.8 Deviations and exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation are not allowed. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be deemed “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the Offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these must be resolved prior to submission of the offer. If the Offeror must make any assumptions prior to submitting the proposal, the Offeror shall list and describe in detail the assumptions on the first page of each Tab. All assumptions shall be fully supported with the Offeror’s rationale and shall fully explain the impact, if any, on the performance and/or specific requirement of the RFP. The Offeror shall clearly describe on the Proposal Cover Sheet submitted with the Price Proposal any assumption to the contractual and/or technical terms and include the monetary impact on the solicitation with the price proposal. This information will not be evaluated separately but may impact the evaluation of other factors.

3.2 DISCUSSIONS

The Government does not intend to enter into discussions with offerors prior to making an award. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306(c)(2).

3.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.3.1 Submit only the hard-copy paper documents and the electronic files specifically authorized and/or required elsewhere in this section. Do not submit excess information, to include audio-visual materials, electronic media, etc.

All pages should be numbered.

3.3.2 Use only 8 ½ by 11 inch paper for hard copy submissions, unless another paper size is specifically authorized elsewhere in this section for a particular submission. Do not use fold-outs (e.g., 11” x 14” or 11” x 17” sheets) unless specifically authorized in this section for a particular submission. Do not use a font size smaller than 10, an unusual font style such as script, or condensed print for any submission. All page margins must be at least 1 inch wide, but may include headers and footers.

3.3.3 Use three-ring binders to assemble your proposal. Do not use spring clamps or exceed the recommended capacity of the fastener or binder.

3.3.4 “Confidential” projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must be clearly marked in accordance with the instructions at FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition”, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data”.

3.3.5 For submissions with page limitations, the pages will be counted as follows: One side of the paper is one page; information on both the back and front of one sheet of paper will be counted as two pages. Where authorized, fold-out pages (11" x 14" or 11" x 17") will count as one page. Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal.

3.3.6 Proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g., bold face print or underlining. The source of the revision, e.g., Error, Omission, or Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED”, shall show the date of revision, shall be submitted in appropriate number of copies (e.g., if two (2) copies of the original page was required, then two (2) copies of the revised page will also be required, and shall be a different color than the original pages they are to replace).

3.4 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME 1)

3.4.1 Number of Sets of the Technical Proposal. Submit the ORIGINAL and five (5) additional sets of the written Technical Proposal as described below. In addition, submit the complete Technical Proposal on one (1) CD capable of being read by a Windows 7 computer. The CD shall contain the entire Technical Proposal in.pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software that was “printed to a .pdf file”—do NOT scan the documents into a .pdf file. The .pdf file(s) should be clearly identified and “linked” together in a logical manner that closely follows the required organization for the written proposal.

3.4.2 Format and Contents of the Proposal and List of Tabs. The original and all copies of the proposal will be appropriately labeled as such. Each set shall be organized using the tabs specified in the chart below.

3.4.3 Page Limitations. The following page limitations are established for each Factor/Sub-factor:

Factor 1 – Performance Capability for SDVOSB Energy SATOC

Sub-factor 1, Relevant Specialized Experience – Limited to 30 pages (to include “Experience Information” forms for Prime Offerors, Prime JV Offerors and Subcontractors) Sub-factor 2, Management Effectiveness – Limited to 15 pages

Sub-factor 3, Key Personnel – No page limitation Factor 2 – Past Performance – No page limitation Factor 3 – Performance Capability for Seed Task Order Sub-factor 1, Technical Approach – Limited to 10 pages Sub-factor 2, Proposed Contract Duration/Summary Schedule – No page limitation (11” x 14” and/or 11” x 17” paper is authorized; however, the pages must be folded in in such a way as to be included in the folders and be easily accessible to the SSEB members.)

3.5 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SEED TASK ORDER PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME 2)

3.5.1 Number of Sets of the Seed Task Order Price Proposal. Submit only an ORIGINAL written Seed Task Order Price Proposal as described below. In addition, submit the complete Price Proposal on one (1) CD capable of being read by a Windows 7 computer. The CD shall contain the entire Price Proposal in.pdf format using Adobe Acrobat software that was “printed to a .pdf file”—do NOT scan the documents into a .pdf file. The .pdf file(s) should be clearly identified and “linked” together in a logical manner that closely follows the required organization for the written proposal.

3.5.2 Size Restrictions and Page Limits. Use only 8 ½” x 11” pages. There are no page limits set for the Seed Task Order Price Proposal. However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

3.5.3 Format and Contents of the Seed Task Order Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Seed Task Order Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the following chart. Note: If the Offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted. However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

SECTION 4

4.0 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Factor/ Subfactor/ Element

LOCATION DESCRIPTION RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 PERFORMANCE

CAPABILITY FOR

SDVOSB ENERGY

SATOC

Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 2 and 3 combined)

Sub-factor 1 Vol 1 Tab A Relevant Specialized Experience

Most Important Sub-factor (more important than Sub-factors 2, 3 & 4)

Sub-factor 2 Vol 1 Tab B Management Effectiveness 2nd Most Important Sub-factor (less important than Sub-factor 1 and more important than Sub-factor 3)

Sub-factor 3 Vol 1 Tab C Key Personnel 3rd Most Important Sub-factor (less important than Sub-factors 1 & 2 and more important than Sub-factor 4)

FACTOR 2

Vol 1 Tab D PAST PERFORMANCE 2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1 and more Important than Factors 2 & 3)

FACTOR 3 PERFORMANCE

CAPABILITY FOR SEED

TASK ORDER

3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1 & 2 more important than Factor 4)

Sub-factor 1 Vol 1 Tab E Technical Approach Most Important Sub-factor (more important than Sub-factor 2)

Sub-factor 2 Vol 1 Tab F Proposed Contract Duration/Summary Schedule

2nd Most Important Sub-factor (less important than Sub-factor 1)

VOLUME 2 – SEED TASK ORDER PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor/ Sub-factor/ Element

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

N/A Vol 2 Tab A Proposal Cover Sheet Not Rated N/A Vol 2 Tab B Signed Letter Responding to

RFP, SF1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

Not Rated

FACTOR 4 Vol 2 Tab C SECTION 00 11 00, PRICING SCHEDULE FOR

SEED TASK ORDER

4th Most Important Factor (less important than Factors 1, 2 & 3 combined)

N/A Vol 2 Tab D Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) Not Rated N/A Vol 2 Tab E Representations &

Certifications Not Rated

N/A Vol 2 Tab F JV Agreement (if applicable) Not Rated

SECTION 5

5.1 VOLUME 1 – TAB A: FACTOR 1, SUB-FACTOR 1 - RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1 The Prime Offeror shall demonstrate “recent”, “relevant” experience on similar projects as described in Paragraph 1.3, using the “Experience Information” form – (Attachment 1) at the end of this section.

5.1.1.2 If using subcontractors as part of the proposed team to demonstrate experience, the Prime Offeror shall describe the role they will play in the SDVOSB Energy SATOC and the percentage of work they will perform.

5.1.1.3 The Prime Offeror shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), “Experience Information” forms in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must be at least 50% complete and completed within the last 5 years.

5.1.1.4 The Prime Offeror may submit one (1) “Experience Information” form for the subcontractors described in 5.1.1.2 above.

5.1.1.5 Because the task orders may be design/build projects, the Prime Offeror shall submit up to three (3) “Experience Information” forms for the Designer member of their team.

Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the Offeror in regard to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. Offerors demonstrating experience with projects of similar size and complexity will be viewed more favorably by the Government.

5.1.2.2 The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of “recent”, “relevant” experience on projects with similar requirements to the SDVOSB Energy SATOC as described in Paragraph

1.3 (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts). Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their proposed role on the SDVOSB Energy SATOC or how their experience qualifies them for their role on the SATOC. If any of the information required is not included in the submitted “Experience Information” forms (Attachment 1), then the Offeror will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

5.1.2.3 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.1.2.4 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project.

5.1.2.5 The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

• Number, size, type work, complexity, location

• Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of Solicitation)

• Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “pouring the sidewalks” or similar minor work on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience).

5.2 VOLUME 1 -TAB B: FACTOR 1, SUB-FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

5.2.1 Submission Requirements.

5.2.1.1 Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement must be included in the proposal (not included in the page limitation). See Paragraph 6.0 for further information.

5.2.1.3 Include a simple organization chart, illustrating the organization.

5.2.1.4 Describe your quality control approach and capabilities to maintain quality control of the awarded task order projects. Describe the proposed quality control organization. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation. There is no need to submit a quality control plan; that requirement will be per task order.

5.2.1.5 Describe your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government’s notification of a proposed Task Order requirement. Include the following:

• Your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, submit and/or negotiate Task Order Proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract;

• Your plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of renewable energy projects for a wide variety of customers simultaneously; and

• Your plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including your plan for conducting meetings and in-process reviews.

5.2.1.5 Describe your plan for managing subcontractor performance, acquisition, execution and administration.

5.2.1.6 Describe your resources in personnel, construction plant and equipment available to self-perform required work under individual Task Orders. Fully describe the type of work your firm is capable of self-performing and describe the types of work you intent to self-perform, if awarded this contract.

5.2.1.7 Describe your resources available and your capabilities to support this project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Describe your resources available and your capabilities to manage and execute several concurrent Task Orders. State why your firm is especially qualified to undertake this contract.

5.2.1.8 Identify the design firm(s) that will be used for the projects, if not self performed.

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the above plans. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the requirements described in the plans and technical specifications of the Solicitation and the capability to execute the projects.

5.2.2.2 The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. If applicable, joint venture participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

5.3 VOLUME 1 - TAB C: FACTOR 1, SUB-FACTOR 3 - KEY PERSONNEL

5.3.1 Submission Requirements. The Offeror shall provide resume data for key personnel that are expected to be assigned to task orders under this contract to include, but not limited to: Construction Project Managers, On-Site Superintendents (site project superintendent), Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Managers and Design Managers for Designer of Record. Resume information to be provided shall be limited to no more than one (1) page per person and shall include the following information as a minimum:

a. Name and title

b. Project assignment

c. Name of firm with which associated

d. Years experience in the role identified.

e. Years experience with this firm and with other firms

f. Education degree(s), year, specialization, if applicable

g. Active professional registration, year first registered, if applicable

h. Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary to perform any work awarded through task orders on this contract.

5.4 VOLUME 1, TAB D: FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.4.1 Submission Requirements:

5.4.1.1 For the projects listed under Factor 1 – Experience, the Government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (to include ACASS, CCASS, and CPARS) to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts and any other past performance information the Government deems necessary to evaluate a contractor’s past performance.

5.4.1.2 For each project that does not have a ACASS, CCASS, or CPARS evaluation, Offerors shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included at Attachment 2 to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 2) which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist identified in Part A, Paragraph 1 of Section 00 21 00, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors via email prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

5.4.1.3 The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. If any negative past performance information is received, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. Each contractor shall provide at least three (3) past performance ratings. Any rating an offeror has in ACASS, CCASS, and CPARS for the projects listed under Factor 1 will count toward this requirement. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the KO has received a minimum of three (3) questionnaires prior to that date/time or has provided written notification to the KO that they have current ratings in ACASS, CCASS, and CPARS. Entities that have no past customers shall notify the KO in writing, prior to the date and time established for the RFP closing, that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided, as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references. The evaluation form shall be provided to the Contract Specialist directly from the reference. Do not request past performance questionnaires on projects that have final ACASS, CCASS, or CPARS evaluations. If a past performance questionnaire is received on a project where a final ACASS, CCASS, or CPARS evaluation exists, the ACASS, CCASS, or CPARS evaluation will serve as the official rating of record for evaluation purposes.

5.4.1.4 The Government may contact references provided as part of Factor 1 – Experience, for information regarding the Offeror’s past performance on the project and for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors should provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

5.4.1.5 The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other sources not provided by the offeror.

5.4.1.6 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

5.4.1.7 Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects not submitted by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS, or other Government appraisal systems or to interview owner or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

5.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.4.2.1 Past Performance evaluation includes two aspects that results in the assessment of the offeror’s probability of performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts (well under way or turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation). First offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the requirements of the RFP. Second the offeror’s past performance shall be given a Performance Confidence Assessment based on how well the contractor performed on recent and relevant past contracts. 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. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on recent relevant projects and projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects. Firms without a history of past performance will receive a neutral rating.

5.4.2.2 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance risk will be considered “unknown”.

5.5 VOLUME 1, TAB E: FACTOR 3 SUB-FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.5.1.1 Provide information that describes the offeror’s intended technical approach to executing the seed task order per the detailed requirements. Limit the information to 10 pages or less; clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution of the task order.

5.5.1.2 Generally describe the items the offeror will self-perform for this task order.

5.5.2 Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the above plan. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of the requirements described in the plans and technical specifications for the seed task order and the capability to execute the project.

5.6 VOLUME 1, TAB F: FACTOR 3 SUB-FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION/SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

5.6.1 Submission Requirements:

5.6.1.1 The Offeror shall propose a contract duration in the appropriate location on the Pricing Schedule not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in Clause 52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, EXECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK. The proposed duration shall become the required contract duration.

5.6.1.2 Submit a summary level schedule for construction including any construction phasing. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab 2.

This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32

01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed summary schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Give attention to the following features:

(1) Show the overall construction phase for major item(s), for the site work, and for utilities (if applicable).

(2) Show turnover of the project. Identify any proposed phased turnovers (if applicable). The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(3) Show as-built submissions.

(4) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

5.6.1.3 The Offerors shall provide a narrative explanation to include the following:

(1) Proposed Phasing Plan

(2) Crew Assembly and Work Schedule(s)

(3) Safety Plan

5.6.1.4 The intent is to provide enough detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the project; however, it is not the intent for the Offeror to provide the amount of detail that will be required in the pre-work submittals.

5.6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.6.2.1 Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration will receive additional rating consideration, provided it is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment. During the subsequent comparison between proposals, differences between proposed contract durations of at least three weeks (differences of 21 calendar days between proposals) will be considered an advantage to the Government, with greater differences also considered, accordingly. No advantage will be considered between proposals for differences less than 21 calendar days.

5.6.2.2. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for construction. The length of the schedule must match the proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. A schedule shorter than the proposed contract duration may indicate the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period.

Both parties shall assume field overhead costs are included in the contract price for the full proposed contract duration. Therefore, the Government believes that there is no valid need to shorten the schedule less than the full proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting, long lead items, phasing, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals, the firm's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.

5.6.2.3 Narrative: The Government will evaluate the narrative for realism and logic in regard to the proposed phasing plan , work crew assembly and work schedule, and safety plan.

SECTION 6

6.0 JOINT VENTURE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (IN LIEU OF PARAGRAPH 5.0).

6.1.1 Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the CCR as the offering Joint Venture.

6.1.2 The JV Offeror shall provide a brief narrative (not to exceed 1 page) stating the roles that each JV member will perform on this project.

6.1.2 The JV Offeror shall demonstrate “recent”, “relevant” experience on similar projects as described in Paragraph 1.3 for the SDVOSB Energy SATOC, using the “Experience Information” form – (Attachment 1) at the end of this section. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects must be at least 50% complete and completed within the last five (5) years.

6.1.3 If using subcontractors as part of the proposed team for the JV to demonstrate experience the JV Offeror shall provide a brief narrative describing the role each subcontractor will play in the SDVOSB Energy SATOC and the percentage of work they will perform.

6.1.4 If the JV Offeror has performed “recent”, “relevant” projects as a JV within the last five (5) years, it must provide at least one (1) but may provide up to three (3) projects that reflect the JV's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation to be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) Paragraphs 5.1.2 thru 5.1.2.5.

6.1.5 If the JV Offeror has not performed “recent, “relevant” projects as a JV within the last five (5) years (i.e. a JV formed for the purposes of this SDVOSB Energy SATOC), the JV Offeror must provide “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by each JV member in their individual capacities.

Each JV member must provide at least one (1) but may provide up to three (3) projects that reflect the JV member's ability to perform the work required in this solicitation to be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) Paragraphs 5.1.2 thru 5.1.2.5.

6.1.6 The JV Offeror may submit one (1) “Experience Information” form for the subcontractors described in 6.1.3 above.

SECTION 7

7.0 VOLUME 2 – PRICE PROPOSAL FOR SEED TASK ORDER

7.1 GENERAL

Submit the Price Proposal For Seed Task Order (Volume 2) in a separate envelope labeled “Volume 2 – Price Proposal For Seed Task Order”.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

7.1.1.1 Volume 2, TAB 1: Proposal Cover Sheet. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2) (c) (i)-

(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors. This provision, titled “Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition,” and the format for the proposal cover sheet as shown here:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number:

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

5. Tax Identification number of Offeror.

7.1.1.2 Volume 2, TAB 2: Letter and SF1442. The Letter provided to respond to this Request for Proposal is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102. Signed SF1442 with all amendments acknowledged by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

7.1.1.3 Volume 2, TAB 3: FACTOR 4 – PRICING SCHEDULE. Section 00 11 00, Pricing Schedule, is to be completed in its entirety by all Offerors. See Section 00 11 00 with attached notes, for further instructions. Include price breakdown information behind the Pricing Schedule.

7.1.1.3 Volume 2, TAB 4: Bid Guarantee. Provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

7.1.1.4 Volume 2, TAB 5: Representations and Certifications: All Offerors must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications on the “Online Representations and Certifications Application” (ORCA) website or respond with the completed representations/certifications found in the solicitation. The Offerors are responsible for ensuring that these on-line Representations and Certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure that they are kept current, accurate and complete. Additionally, the Offeror must also complete and return the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” included in the solicitation. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete both the ORCA Representations and Certifications.

7.1.1.5 Volume 2, TAB 6: Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable): If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not yet been finalized/approve, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentage of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

7.1.2.1 The Price Proposal for Seed Task Order will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for completeness, fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Firms are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

7.1.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

7.1.2.3 Award cannot be made for project cost for construction exceeding the cost amount authorized by Congress.

REVISED 8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2 Definitions:

• 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.

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

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

• Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

• Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The firm may or may not have called the deviation to the Government’s attention. A deviation is a deficiency.

The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

8.3 Evaluation Rating System:

8.3.1 Technical Proposal Rating System: The SSEB will support each rating with a narrative that separately lists all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

8.3.1.1 Evaluation of Technical Proposals (Factors 1, 2 and 3) by Individual SSEB Members:

• The individual SSEB member will review the individual technical proposals (Factors 1, 2 and 3) and identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Deficiencies, Uncertainities and Items for Discussion for each Factor and Sub-Factor. They will not compare proposals to each other at this time.

• The individual SSEB members will assign one of the adjectival ratings listed in Paragraph 8.4 to the sub-factors for Factors 1 and 3 and then assign an Overall Adjectival Rating for each Factor.

• The individual SSEB members will assign a Confidence Assessment and Relevance Rating listed in Paragraph 8.5 to Factor 3.

8.3.1 Consensus…