W912BV20R0037 - AM04.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

TENKILLER FERRY DAM POWERSHOUSE BUTTERFLY VALVE REFURBISHMENT

1. Amendment 0004 is issued to replace the follow ing sections, see "Summary of Changes." RFP due date has been extended 22 April 2021 at 2:00 PM CST.

2. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged by this amendment.

4. The point of contact for this action is Shaw n Brady at shaw n.brady@usace.army.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Apr-2021

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 W912BV20R0037

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Feb-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Apr-2021

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT

2488 E. 81ST STREET

TULSA OK 74137-4290

W912BV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912BV20R0037

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

AMENDMENT #0004

SOLICITATION NO. W912BV20R0037

TENKILLER FERRY DAM POWERSHOUSE

BUTTERFLY VALVE REFURBISHMENT

SEQUOYAH COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Standard Form (SF) 30, Block 14 (continuation):

Revise the proposal documents as follows:

SPECIFICATIONS

Delete previously issued sections and replace with the corresponding sections in their entirety:

00 22 11 01 10 00 22 00 00.00 26

DRAWINGS

Delete previously issued sheet/s and replace with the corresponding sheets/s in its/their entirety:

X-XXX

END OF SUMMARY OF CHANGES – AMENDMENT 0004

SECTION 00 11 00 - SF 1442 AND CLIN SCHEDULE

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Apr-2021 02:00 PM to 22-Apr-2021 02:00 PM.

(End of Summary of Changes)

Amendment #4 -Re-issued in Entirety Solicitation W912BV20R0037

TENKILLER LAKE BUTTERFLY VALVE REFURB FY20 TNKLRBTRFLYFY20

AMENDMENT #0004

SOLICITATION NO. W912BV20R0037

TENKILLER FERRY DAM POWERSHOUSE

BUTTERFLY VALVE REFURBISHMENT

SEQUOYAH COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Standard Form (SF) 30, Block 14 (continuation):

Revise the proposal documents as follows:

SPECIFICATIONS

Delete previously issued sections and replace with the corresponding sections in their entirety:

00 22 11 01 10 00 22 00 00.00 26

DRAWINGS

Delete previously issued sheet/s and replace with the corresponding sheets/s in its/their entirety:

X-XXX

END OF SUMMARY OF CHANGES – AMENDMENT 0004

Amendment #4 - Reissued in Entirety

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, Basis of Award One-Step-Best Value, Design-Build (Single Award)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

ATTACHMENT 1 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 11

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 This is an unrestricted competitive solicitation for a firm, fixed-price Design-Bid-Build construction contract to be awarded using the Trade-Off, Best Value selection process. This Request for Proposal (RFP) is to refurbish the two main hydropower units’ 180 inch diameter penstock butterfly valves (including the conversion of the main valve body seal from bronze segments to a Hartman Valve Corporation Circlok Seal system, rework of valve internal and external surfaces, and replacement of the existing valve disk stainless steel ring), and refurbishment of each penstock butterfly valve’s associated systems and controls (including replacement of each existing butterfly valve operator’s Philadelphia Gear gearboxes with an equivalent Philadelphia Gear Worm Drive gearbox, replacement and addition of penstock butterfly valve local and remote monitoring and controls, replacement of each valve bypass system’s motorized valve and controls, providing new butterfly valve lubrication systems, and replacement of pressure differential monitoring system) at the Tenkiller Ferry powerhouse. The solicitation criteria shall rely upon industry standards as much as possible and firms must meet all project requirements.

1.2 Offerors will submit proposals with performance capability including identification of key subcontractors, the proposed contract duration, a preliminary schedule, and a price proposal. The Government will evaluate initial proposals in accordance with the criteria described in this Section. Award of a firm fixed-price contract will be made to the responsive offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and represents the overall best value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors, below. The final evaluation rating used for comparison, selection, and award will reflect the ratings received during proposal evaluation. Cost and price information will not be rated but will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.4. When combined, all non-price factors are considered significantly more important than price.

1.2.1 The proposal must describe the capability of the offeror to perform the work and understanding of the requirements contained in the Statement of Work, and set forth full, accurate, and complete information required by the RFP. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically and be legible, clear and coherent.

1.2.2 This is not a sealed bid procurement process. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. Contract award is subject to funds availability.

1.2.3 Proposal Submissions and the Trade-Off Process. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Proposals must demonstrate performance and capability information for review and consideration by the Government. Relative weights among past performance and technical factors are provided, below. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. If discussions are held, a competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified firms will be established, first. Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals.

Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals to one another and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: Any legally organized business firm formally organized as entities, construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of small business firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors.

2.2 Specific instructions for Joint Ventures (JV) and Partnerships

2.2.1 JV or Partnerships shall be registered in the System for Acquisition Management (www.SAM.gov) as a JV or Partnership.

2.2.2 JV or Partnerships shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture or Partnership Agreement.

2.2.3 JV or Partnerships shall provide a detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

a) The relationship of the JV or Partnership parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit sharing.

b) The management approach of the JV or Partnership in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the JV or Partnership and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c) The structure of the JV or Partnership and decision-making responsibilities of the JV or

Partnership parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d) The bonding responsibilities of the JV or Partnership parties.

e) Identification of key personnel having authority to legally bind the JV or Partnership to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the JV or Partnership.

f) Identification of party maintaining the JV or Partnership bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the JV or Partnership.

g) Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

h) Identification of party having overall control of the JV or Partnership.

2.2.4 JV or Partnerships shall identify in other sections of the proposal, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual JV or Partnership parties (and identify the party) or hired as employees of the JV or Partnership.

2.2.5 If one of the JV or Partnership parties possesses experience and/or past performance as a Federal Government contractor or as a Corps of Engineers contractor, that experience and/or past performance will be included as the experience and/or past performance of the JV or Partnership.

2.3 Where to Submit: Submit proposals to USACE Tulsa District as instructed in Section 00 21 00

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS.

2.4 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Tulsa District no later than the time and date specified in Block 10 of Standard Form 1442 or as amended in a Standard Form 30.

2.5 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

2.6 Page Limitations. Proposals are limited to the number of pages shown below, not including the Table of Contents, tab dividers, OSHA forms, Drawings, Data Sheets, Installation Details, Construction Schedules and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ-0) forms.

Factor 1 PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

(AM#4) Large Valve Work Experience (AM#4)

Narrative Experience Forms

3 pages No Limit

Gearbox Replacement Work Experience

Narrative Experience Forms

3 pages No Limit

Factor 2 WORK APPROACH Organization/Management Narrative 10 pages Key Personnel Resumes 2 pages each Manufacturer Quality Control Narrative 3 Pages Schedule Narrative

Chart(s) 5 Pages No Limit

On-Site Tenkiller Ferry Quality Control Narrative 3 Pages

Factor 3

PAST PERFORMANCE

CPARS Evaluations Past Performance

Questionnaires

Limit PPQ-0’s to five

Factor 4 SAFETY RECORD AND SAFETY

PLAN

Safety Record – OSHA Forms 300 or 300a

OSHA Forms 300 & 300a Narrative

No Limit 3 Pages

Safety Plan Narrative

Chart(s) 5 Pages No Limit

Factor 5 SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION Narrative 3 Pages

Factor 6 Price and Pro Forma Documents Price CLIN Schedule

2.7 In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, proposals must include sufficient detail to allow review by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory.

Failures to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect a proposal's evaluation.

Provide sufficient detail and clearly define all items required in this section.

2.8 The Contracting Officer may remove any proposal from further consideration during any phase of the procurement if the proposal fails to meet the submittal requirements of the RFP, or to reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.8.1 Proposals shall be organized as shown in paragraph 3.0, “Proposal and Related Evaluation Factors.”

2.9 Proposal Submissions

2.9.1 Proposals shall be submitted in electronic format and contain the information in original PDF files that are accurately bookmarked. Electronic proposals shall be posted on FBO or sent to the Contracting Specialist and the Contracting Officer via email, see Section 00 21 00. Proposals shall be labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Font size shall not be less than 10 point.

Do not use condensed font. Each page shall be sequentially and consecutively identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of each page. The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. Do not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of the proposal. Proposals that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

2.9.2 The proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents for each volume. A cover sheet identifying the firm(s) (name, address, point of contact), project description, and solicitation number shall be provided with each volume, followed by a Table of Contents. Improper proposal formats will unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the page limitations noted.

2.9.3 Electronic Format: The electronic files for each volume shall contain the respective portion of the proposal in PDF format using Adobe Acrobat software; do not scan the documents into a PDF file except the bid bond may be scanned. The text portion of each volume of the proposal shall be contained as a single PDF file. Sections of the proposal shall be linked to the index in logical order through use of bookmarks.

2.9.4 Number of Copies: Submit one copy of all electronic files via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) or send to the Contracting Specialist and the Contracting Officer via email, see Section 00 21 00.

2.9.5 Proposal revisions, if requested, 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, Clarification, or amendment shall be included and be annotated for each revision. Proposal replacement pages shall be numbered, shall be clearly marked “REVISED” show the date of revision.

3.0 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Front Matter

SF 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet

Not Rated

Volume 1

Factor 1

Performance Capability Equally Most Important

Factor

Factor 2

Work Approach Equally Most Important

Factor

Factor 3

Past Performance Equally Most Important

Factor Factor 4 Safety Record and Safety Plan 4th Most Important Factor

Volume 2 Factor 5 Small Business Utilization Plan 5th Most Important Factor

Volume 3 Factor 6 Price and Pro Forma Documents Not Rated

4.0 STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1 Submit the SF-1442, completed and signed by the firm’s authorized representative. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See Attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section).

5.0 VOLUME 1

5.1 FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using Relevant Experience Information form (Attachment 2) and supplemental narratives. Proposals may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture or partnership, each firm shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects selected from those discussed in the experience narrative that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no more than seven

(7) years preceding the date of this RFP. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer, or by the team member. If projects were design bid build, so identify them. The offeror shall provide project information for the stated minimum number of recent and relevant projects for each area identified below.

If using any subcontractors as part of the proposed team to demonstrate experience, describe the role they will play in this project and the percentage of work they will perform in either paragraph or table form. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor performing over 25% of the work. The seal system installer, valve operator installer, and refurbisher of the butterfly valves are also considered a major subcontractor, regardless their percentage of work to be performed. The Offer must include commitment form (Attachment 6) from all major subcontractors to illustrate their commitment to working with the Offeror on this project. Upon award, subcontractors proposed to be used to complete the assembly, erection, and/or manufacturing portion of the contract shall not be substituted without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.

The proposal may contain a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly representative of this project is applicable and how the Government will benefit.

The proposal should describe any previous teaming experience between proposed team members, if not described in the project list.

The following elements are considered equally important to demonstrate adequate organization and performance capability: use best judgment when apportioning space/pages to each area for this factor. Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and performance capability to execute the design bid build contract per the detailed requirements herein. . Clearly but concisely describe the organizational approach to project management and execution. Do not exceed the page limits stated, above: resumes submitted for key personnel are limited to two pages each.

5.1. 2 (AM#4) Large Valve Work Experience (AM#4)

Demonstrate the offeror has experience in work on (AM#4) Large Valves (AM#4) (greater than 78 inches in diameter) by submitting no less than Five (5) Projects completed within the last seven years where work on (AM#4) Large Valves was provided, at least one being a butterfly valve. (AM#4) Project information shall include:

a) Description of the project including size, ratings and number of units.

b) Name of point of Contact at the project

c) Project location

d) Project completion date

e) Include for each project details to address:

i) Was the work performed at a Hydropower Facility, was the valve refurbished in place or replaced? If refurbished, what components were replaced and what surfaces were reworked?

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

iii) Was the valve operator replaced? If so, what type of valve operator?

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

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

vi) (AM#4) Was Valve Refurbished in Place? (AM#4)

vii) (AM#4) Was Valve Body Seal Converted From Metal to Elastomeric Seal With Mechanical Retention Component? (AM#4)

viii) (AM#4) Diameter of Valve Body? (AM#4)

ix) (AM#4) Water Velocity Valve (ft/sec)? (AM#4)

x) (AM#4) Was Valve Sealing System Successful In Sealing With Valve Closed? (AM#4)

xi) (AM#4) Was Valve Sealing System Successful In Remaining Retained Underflow? (AM#4)

xii) Has All Post Work Field Testing Been Completed?

f) Qualifications of proposed site personnel are submitted under Key Personnel, below.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate experience for manufacturing and installing equipment and demonstrated compliance with specification requirements for equipment manufacturing and installation. The Government will use the information provided to confirm that the offeror has relevant and current experience to undertake the project. Government will consider the following aspects favorably:

a) Managing a Large Hydropower Project with Unit Outage

b) Projects involving USACE and other government hydropower facilities.

c) Rework performed with valves in place.

d) Those involving Replacement of valve operators.

e) (AM#4) The large valve involved is a butterfly valve (AM#4)

5.1.3 Gearbox Replacement Work Experience

Demonstrate the offeror and the manufacturer of the new Penstock Butterfly Valve Operator Gearbox has experience in providing equipment (including demolition and installation), by submitting no less than three (3) Projects completed within the last seven years where similar work was provided. Project information shall include:

a) Description of the project including size, ratings and number of units.

b) Gearbox manufacturer

c) Name of point of Contact at the project

d) Project location

e) Project completion date

f) Information detailing offeror’s experience with managing and installing the equipment

g) Any agreements with the manufacturer for installing their equipment should also be provided

h) Qualifications of proposed site personnel are submitted under Key Personnel, below.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate experience for manufacturing and installing equipment and demonstrated compliance with specification requirements for equipment manufacturing and installation. The Government will use the information provided to confirm that the offeror has relevant and current experience to undertake the project.

5.1.4 Evaluation Rating: For Technical Factors (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance) the rating methodology (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2) is Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process and will be used for this acquisition.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

5.2 FACTOR 2 – WORK APPROACH

5.2.1 Organization/Management

Demonstrate the offeror’s personnel management, subcontractor relations, joint ventures if any, project organization chart, matrix of responsibilities, key personnel, and on-site Tenkiller Ferry Power House quality control by submitting:

1) Project Management: Clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution of the contract.

2) Personnel Management:

a) Management Structure: Describe how the construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

b) Subcontractor List: Name all the proposed subcontractors that will be used in the contract and describe how they will be utilized, and if they are a major or key subcontractor.

NOTE: The Offeror shall be required to obtain the Contracting Officer’s approval for any substitution of listed firms after contract award.

c) Joint Ventures: Describe each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. NOTE:

A Joint Venture a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement must be included in the Price Proposal.

d) Project Organizational Chart: Illustrate in detail the role of the Offeror and of all

Subcontractors.

e) Matrix of Responsibilities: Describe the key work breakdown activities for the Offeror and each subcontractor, including construction activities for each major feature.

g) Key Personnel Chart: Illustrate the following: (1) key positions; (2) the names of the personnel holding that position and (3) the name of the company that person is employed by including their job title at that company. NOTE: the Key Personnel Chart MUST be consistent with the Project Organization Chart, the Matrix of Responsibilities and the list of key personnel provided.

Submit qualifications of the proposed site personnel to demonstrate the ability to perform the work as required in the specifications and their experience with the proposed equipment:

1) Narrative description projects involved with, whether as a current employee or working for another company, and information as to what equipment was installed, their responsibilities and information to demonstrate ability to install the equipment under this solicitation.

2) Name of point of contacts at the projects, project locations, and project completion dates.

5.2.2 Key Personnel

Provide resume data for the following key personnel: Construction Project Manager, Quality Control Manager (CQC System Manager), all specialized personnel assisting the Quality Control Manager (Electrical, Mechanical, and Instrumentation), Site Superintendent, and Site Safety and Health Officer.

Resume information to be provided shall be limited to no more than two (2) pages per person and shall include the following information as a minimum:

a) Name and tile

b) Project Assignment

c) Name of point of contacts at the projects, project locations, and project completion

d) Name of firm with which associated

e) Years of experience in the role identified

f) Years of experience with this firm and with other firms

g) Education degree(s), year, specialization, if applicable

h) Active professional registration, year first registered, if applicable

i) Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract

Demonstrate proposed site personnel possess the ability to perform the work as required in the specifications and their experience with the proposed equipment by including a narrative description of assigned projects, whether as a current employee or working for another company, and information as to what equipment was installed, their responsibilities and information to demonstrate ability to accomplish installation of the equipment under this solicitation.

The minimum experience requirements for the Construction Project Manager and on-site superintendent shall be in accordance with Section 01 45 00 of the Specifications. Minimum experience requirements for other personnel shall be as required by Division 01 specifications.

5.2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the resumes to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary to perform their assigned roles. Offerors providing resumes for key personnel for this project that have experience in similar key positions on the projects shown under Factor 1 will be viewed more favorably by the Government. Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the Government.

5.2.3 Schedule

Provide a schedule in Gantt Chart format using the critical path method (MS Project 2013 or Primavera P6 software) showing a planned schedule to complete the project including: the design; procurement of major supplies; manufacturing; transportation and storage; on-site assembly; and on-site testing of all components for the butterfly valve refurbishment. The schedule shall also include on-site mobilization and demobilization, any identified work windows, critical submittals, interim milestones, and contract completion date. The schedule must:

a) Be graphically represented, task oriented and meet the proposed contract duration stated in

Section 00 73 00 Clause 52.211-10; AND

b) Provide enough detail to demonstrate an understanding of the requirement including any constraints that can be anticipated (e.g. labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc); AND

c) Show planned sequencing of major activities and phases (e.g. design, procurement, fabrication, permitting activities, disassembly, construction, and commissioning) for completing the project; AND

d) Be in Calendar days with appropriate logic and task duration; AND

e) Show overall construction phase for major item(s) such as the site work, design, procurement, fabrication, permitting activities, disassembly, construction, and commissioning; AND

f) Show Hydro-turbine Unit Outage Period; AND

g) Show milestones that include the design, fabrication, installation and testing of the new seal system, and valve operator and controls; AND

h) Show turnover of the project as well as any proposed phased turnovers (if applicable). NOTE:

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; AND

i) Shows as-built submissions; AND

j) Clearly identifies any float in the schedule; AND

k) Shows the duration by total calendar days from Notice To Proceed (NTP) to the completion of all work.

Evaluation Criteria

A baseline schedule using the proposed contract duration of Section 00 73 00 Clause 52.211-10 will be prepared by the Government and used for comparison purposes.

The Offeror may propose a shorter contract duration which may be evaluated as more favorable, but may also be discounted if errors and omissions are identified or other elements of the proposal leave doubt (risk) in the ability of the contractor to complete the schedule as proposed. A shorter contract duration than that identified in Clause 52.211-10 may indicate additional risk for the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period. If a shorter contract duration +is proposed, specific details indicating how and why the duration can be shortened must be included in the schedule.

The schedule will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness, assessing the offeror’s project scope depth of understanding and restrictions which must be considered in the schedule, e.g. permitting, long lead items, phasing, etc.; and understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals and the firm's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration.

The schedule will be incorporated into any resulting award and form the baseline for required performance and contract administration. A schedule that offers advantages 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 be given more favorable consideration.

5.2.4 On-Site Tenkiller Ferry Quality Control

Describe the on-site Tenkiller Ferry quality control approach for the project; include a description of the systems and capabilities to maintain on-site quality control throughout the project.

Describe the proposed on-site quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

Describe how internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation will be handled. NOTE:

There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award.

NOTE: Provide enough detail to demonstrate understanding of the project; however, do not provide the amount of detail that will be required in the pre-work submittals following contract award.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the information provided to:

a) Determine Offeror’s understanding of the requirements described in Division 01 plans and specifications of the Solicitation and Offeror’s capability to execute the project; AND

b) Determine the clarity and strength of the overall organization and if it is sufficiently organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work; AND

c) Determine if Joint Venture participants’ contribution to the organization is commensurate with their skills and background (if applicable); AND

d) Determine Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction; AND

e) Determine if the staffing plan is adequate to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

5.2.5 Evaluation Rating

For Technical Factors (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance) the rating methodology (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2) is Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process and will be used for this acquisition.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

5.3 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.3.1.1 Past Performance Information (PPI) is to be provided for the projects listed under Factor 1 – Performance Capability.

1) For Department of Defense (DoD) projects Offeror need not submit a copy of the Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations (ACASS & CCASS) for each DoD project: instead, provide written notification that current ratings are available for the Government to evaluate.

2) For Non DoD projects or projects that do not have a CPARS Evaluation:

a) Offeror shall include copies of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ, see

Attachment 3) in the proposal.

b) Offerors shall not incorporate PPQs previously submitted by reference in their proposal for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

c) Offerors shall not request PPQs 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.

d) If any negative past performance information is received, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal if the Offeror has not had an opportunity to previously address the evaluation.

e) Entities that have no past performance shall notify the Contract Specialist prior to the date and time established for receipt of proposals, that they have had no previous clients and that PPQs cannot be provided. The proposal must contain a written statement that no past performance evaluations are available.

f) 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.

g) 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.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

5.3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and major or key subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. 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.

5.3.2.2 The proposal must demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in construction, for the types of work required by this project. Recent experience includes projects well underway (50% or more complete) or those completed and turned over within seven (7) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Joint Ventures and Partnerships should separately demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

5.3.2.3 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.

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

5.3.2.5 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:

a) Number, size, type work, complexity, location

b) Dates (well under way 50% or more completed, no more than 7 years preceding date of

Solicitation)

c) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply managing a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

5.3.2.6 Previous experience on all aspects of the work is not mandatory for an acceptable rating. The Government will consider previous experience a strength, even if the experience is on different type projects than this project. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit given.

5.3.2.7 Past Performance evaluation includes two aspects to assess the offeror’s probability of performing the requirements stated in the RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts.

a) First, the 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.

b) Second, the offeror’s past performance shall be given a Performance Confidence Assessment based on how well the contractor performed on past contracts.

5.3.2.8 The Government will assign a performance confidence assessment based on the probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the contractor’s recent, relevant experience. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact furnished references, or to consider first-hand personal knowledge of Government employees.

5.3.2.9 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished compared to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described, below. The projects will include those submitted as well as from other sources described, above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing an overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below.

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

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

5.3.2.10 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the 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. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. 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 design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of meeting quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for work product such as as-built documentation, O&M Manuals, training, problem resolution for design or 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, such as furnished references, customer evaluations, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects involving particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully.

5.3.2.11 A degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements will be assigned. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

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.

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.

Limited Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based upon the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.3.2.12 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified in the proposal, and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Unknown Confidence.”

5.4 FACTOR 4 – SAFETY RECORD

5.4.1 Safety Record

Provide either OSHA Form 300 or 300a showing incident rates for all projects within the past three (3) years. This form, in Microsoft Excel format, can be downloaded from the Internet at:

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form6-30-16.xls. Convert the data using the following formula for each of the three (3) years:

a) Number of Lost Time Accidents for the Year (Column H on Form 300 or 300A) x 200,000 divided by Man-Hours Worked that Year (from Form 300A) = Incident Rate for the Year

b) The Offeror shall calculate the lost time incident rate for each of the past three (3) years using the appropriate OSHA Form data. These calculations shall be presented for each year with the mathematical average of all three years.

c) The target average lost time incident rate is 1.0. Offerors with an average lost time incident rate exceeding 1.0 are encouraged to submit an explanation of their incident rate and/or what they have done to improve their safety record.

Submit a narrative delineating improvements in the offeror’s safety record, safety awards, and other safety recognition; include a description of any safety incentives programs and how the program is administered, if one is established, and describe what benefits the Offeror has seen by implementing the program including any known benefits to their customers.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will use all information available, to include CCASS rating for safety, lost time incident rate, safety incentive program, safety awards, and other indications of improvements in safety to evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record.

5.4.2 Safety Plan

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form6-30-16.xls http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form6-30-16.xls

a) Describe the team’s safety approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain safety requirements during construction.

b) Describe the proposed safety organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

c) Clearly address any specific safety concerns for the Tenkiller Ferry Powerhouse work site.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the information provided to:

a) Determine the realism, logic, and understanding of the contractual requirements in regard to the Safety Plan; AND

b) Site Safety Plan that addresses specific safety concerns for the Tenkiller Ferry Powerhouse work site.

5.5 FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION PLAN

Identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses, Woman-Owned Small…