W912DS20R0022 Solicitation.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 02:00 PM local time 18 Feb 2021

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F

100 - 129 H

Alyssa.Tornatore@usace.army.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 129

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS

SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

W912DS 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and see section 3.0 conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

ALYSSA TORNATORE 917-790-8389

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

2 - 7

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT

PACKAGING AND MARKING

8 - 46 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 49 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

50 - 99

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 16-300

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

(917)790-8026

212-264-3013FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATE ISSUED

13 Jan 2021

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

W912DS20R0022

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

Manufacturing and Delivery

FFP

All costs in connection to the MANUFACTURING and DELIVERY of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM in accordance with the RFP.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1JZ

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

Phase I Costs

FFP

Informational Purposes only - see subclins 0002AA and 0002AB for priced CLINS. All costs in connection to the PHASE I DESIGN, INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, and COMMISSIONING of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including, but not limited to, value engineering, foundation and building system modification costs and utility tie-in costs in accordance with the RFP.

NET AMT

Not Separately Priced

0002AA 1 Job

Phase I Design Costs

FFP

All costs in connection to the PHASE I DESIGN of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including value engineering in accordance with the RFP.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1JZ

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0002AB 1 Job

Phase I Install, Construction, Comm

FFP

All costs in connection to the PHASE I INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, and COMMISSIONING of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including, but not limited to, foundation and building system modification costs and utility tie-in costs in accordance with the RFP.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1JZ

NET AMT

Phase II Costs

FFP

Informational Purposes only - see subclins 0003AA and 0003AB for priced CLINS..All costs in connection to the PHASE II DESIGN, INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, and COMMISSIONING of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including, but not limited to, value engineering, foundation and building system modification costs and utility tie-in costs in accordance with the RFP.

NET AMT

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0003AA 1 Job

Phase II Design

FFP

All costs in connection to the PHASE II DESIGN of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including value engineering in accordance with the RFP.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: Y1JZ

NET AMT

Not Separately Priced

0003AB 1 Job Phase II Install, Construction, Comm

FFP

All costs in connection to the PHASE II INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, and COMMISSIONING of the replacement GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM including, but not limited to, foundation and building system modification costs and utility tie-in costs in accordance with the RFP.

FOB: Destination

0004 1 Job Demolition and Removal Costs

FFP

All costs in connection to the DEMOLITION and REMOVAL of the existing GUN TUBE HEAT TREAT FURNACE SYSTEM in accordance with the RFP.

0005 1 Job OPTION Option 1

FFP

OPTION 1-Cost difference for a three-year furnace warranty in lieu of a shorter term furnace warranty in accordance with Specification Section 01 10 00 paragraph

2.2.11 in the RFP.

0006 1 Job OPTION Option 2

FFP

OPTION 2-Cost difference for a Recuperative Combustion system in lieu of a standard combustion system in accordance with Specification Section 01 10 00 paragraph 2.3.1 in the RFP

TOTALS AND NOTES

TOTAL BASE (CLINs 0001 thru 0004)

TOTAL OPTIONAL (CLINs 0005 thru 0006)

TOTAL BASE PLUS OPTIONAL (CLINs 0001 thru 0006)

Proposed Contract Duration:____________ calendar days.

NOTES:

(1) Total Offer shall include costs associated with each item number including overhead and profit. Construction bonding must be incorporated in CLINS 0002, 0003, and 0004.

(2) Offerors must submit a price for every CLIN. Failure to do so may result in an Offer being unacceptable.

(3) CLIN 0001, includes all costs for efforts related to manufacturing and delivery of the gun tube heat treat furnace. Design, Installation, Construction, Commissioning, but not limited to, value engineering, foundation and building system modification costs and utility tie-in costs, as well as coordination for efforts during construction shall be distributed amongst CLINs 0002 and 0003.

(4) At the option of the Government, the Government may require the Offeror to perform work identified as optional line items (CLINs 0005 through 0006) at the price stated in the CLIN schedule. The Government may exercise neither, one or both of these optional line items. CLINs 0005 and 0006 may be exercised at the time of award or within 180 calendar days after issuance of Notice to Proceed (NTP). There is not a separate completion period for the optional items. The work must be completed within the Proposed Contract Duration above or no later than 760 calendar days from NTP. The Government is under no obligation to exercise any options.

(5) Maximum Contract Duration allowed is 760 calendar days.

Section C - Descriptions and Specifications

EVALUATION CRITERIA

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD, EVALUATION

CRITERIA, RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITION

SECTION 00 22 10 – SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

BEST VALUE TRADE OFF

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND

ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB C – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, PHASING AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

5.3 TAB D – FACTOR3 –TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.4 TAB E – FACTOR 4 – ORGANIZATIONAL APPORACH

6.0 VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS

6.1 TAB A – FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

6.2 TAB B – FACTOR 5 – PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

7.0 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 6 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE

ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.2 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

7.3 TAB C – SELF PERFORMED WORK

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY SUB CONTRACTOR

4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

5 – KEY EMPLOYEE RESUME

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is a single-step "Best Value Trade Off" solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 for the Supply and Install of the Gun Tube Heat Treat Furnace located at Watervliet Arsenal, NY. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible firm, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This is a Best Value Trade Off procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price Supply contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer have determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

All technical factors (1-5) when combined are approximately equal in importance to price factor 6.

Technical factor 3 is the most important technical factor, followed by technical factor 1. All remaining technical factors are equal in importance. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within an acceptable range. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government will be performed.

The price used in the trade-off analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and options (CLINS 0001-0006). The trade-off analysis will be conducted and a best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror. The magnitude of the project is between $25,000,000 and $50,000,000.

As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1.1 Who May Submit:

i. Competition will be unrestricted (i.e. open to all businesses regardless of Small

Business status). Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

3.1.2 Inquiries about this solicitation:

i. Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation only by e-mail to: E-MAIL ADDRESS: Alyssa.Tornatore@usace.army.mil Include the solicitation number, and project title with any questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office not later than 7 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiation acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until all awards are made.

3.1.3 Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials shall be submitted in the following volumes:

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer/PCO must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8- 1/2 x 11 inch size paper. Schedules, Drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17 inch paper, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one inch margins all around. Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture agreements.

3.1.4 Joint Ventures

i. When an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any financial surety instrument that is required, unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Signatures on the written agreement designating one member of the joint venture as having legal authority to bind all other members of the joint venture must be executed by the duly authorized representatives of the respective joint venture members. All joint venture members will remain jointly and severally liable for all actions, representations, and other activities by the joint venture and by other joint venture members in connection with this solicitation and subsequent contract. A copy of the joint venture agreement and agreement providing evidence of the authority to legally

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

1 A Factor 1: Past Performance No Page Limit

B Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule

C Factor 3: Technical Approach 10

1 D Factor 4: Organizational Approach 10

A Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan No page limit

2 B Factor 5: Past Utilization of Small Business No page limit

3 A Factor 6: Price (Standard Form 1442 & Contract Line Item Schedule)

No page limit

3 B Factor 6: Bid Guarantee No page limit

3 C Factor 6: Self-Performed Work No page limit bind all other members of the joint venture must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

ii. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and other information about each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture. The experience of each joint venture partner will be considered the experience of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures must also submit the following additional documentation:

3.1.4.ii.1 A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

3.1.4.ii.2 A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

3.1.4.ii.3 The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

3.1.4.ii.4 The structure of the joint venture and decision making responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work under the contract.

3.1.4.ii.5 Identification of key personnel having the authority to bind the joint venture to any and all agreements, including any subcontracts, executed by the joint venture.

3.1.4.ii.6 Identification of party or parties maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposit of all receipts, keeping the books and records of the joint venture, and paying applicable taxes for the joint venture.

3.1.4.ii.7 Identification of party or parties having overall control of the joint venture.

iii. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture entities and identify the entity, or whether they are hired directly as employees of the joint venture.

iv. A complete and legally binding document with all information required under this section titles “Joint Ventures” shall be included in Volume I of the proposal.

3.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Proposal Requirements and Submission

Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures). Offerors must meet all technical portions (construction criteria) of the RFP.

The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical, or other, requirements of the RFP.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror. Therefore the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

i. Proposals shall be typed and easy to read. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear.

ii. Must contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, DUNS, and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors— Competitive Acquisition.”

iii. Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

iv. Proposals shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

v. Offerors shall submit a signed dated Standard Form, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

vi. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary.

However, proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

vii. Failing to submit attachments or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and contact the Contract Specialist if instructions are not understood.

3.2.2 Where to Submit:

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER

TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL,

HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall email their proposals using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Alyssa

Tornatore at Alyssa.tornatore@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Alyssa Tornatore at Alyssa.tornatore@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil no later than two (2) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code two (2) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.)

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

1. Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

2. After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is

Alyssa Tornatore at alyssa.tornatore@usace.army.mil and Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at Nicholas.P.Emanuel@usace.army.mil. The E- Mail address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the E-Mail address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialist. The Proposer can enter an additional E-Mail address if desired. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A Proposer can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 2GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic some cases.

The government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3.3 VOLUME 1– MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part

9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently- proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions under Factor 1:

3.3.1 In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this

RFP, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror”.

3.3.2 In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3.3.3 In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

3.3.4 In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

3.3.5 In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience may be submitted by any segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

3.3.6 In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

3.3.7 If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé is a Small and Large Business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, RATINGS AND

ELEMENTS

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for the evaluation factor.

Offerors will be informed of the non-Government advisors who will assist in the evaluation, and Offerors will be informed that the non-Government advisors will not be involved with any related subsequent contract(s).

Non-Government Advisor Contractor: Furnace Solutions Inc.

Firms are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Firms should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submission. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated, unless the range is further reduced for the purposes of efficiency. Competitive range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal. The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the competitive range.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those firms in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Firm an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Firm to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those firms still considered within the competitive range, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

LOCATION FACTOR

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Volume 1 Tab A Factor 1 Past Performance Technical factor 3 is the most important technical factor, followed by technical factor 1. All remaining technical factors (2, 4, & 5) are equal in importance.

Volume 1 Tab B Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule

Volume 1 Tab C Factor 3 Technical Approach Volume 1 Tab D Factor 4 Organizational

Approach

4.2 VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Volume 2 TAB 1 Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan

Technical factor 5 is equal in importance to technical factors 2 & 4. Volume 2 TAB 2 Factor 5 Past Utilization Of Small

Business

4.3 VOLUME 3 – PRICE

DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Vol 3 Factor 6 Price All technical factors (1-5) when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

5.0 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: The technical factors consists of examples of Past Performance that meet the relevant scope, complexity, and magnitude described below. This Volume also includes factors for a Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule, Organizational Approach,., Technical Approach, and Small Business Participation Plan.

DEFINITIONS:

• Deficiency: A material failure of a response or 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. (FAR 15.001)

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

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the response or proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

• 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. Denoted with an (S).

• Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The Offeror 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.

• Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor response or proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the response or proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

• General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other.

• Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

• Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding", "Good", "Acceptable", "Marginal", or "Unacceptable" to each factor except the Past Performance Factor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the evaluation criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on relevant projects using the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. Your client should receive form ATTACHMENT 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) with items 1 through 4 completed and the “Note” that appears on its reverse side as well as the “Adjective Rating and Definitions” that are used for the ratings in the form.

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 the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ form, 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 Government’s point of contact, Contract Specialist 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

The Government reserves the right to verify the experience by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DoD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

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.

The source selection evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below.

Less than satisfactory performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current solicitation, although the past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the criteria for Factor 1.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

5.1.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The SSEB will evaluate the risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each past performance.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 1: Refer to the Table is section 5.1.3

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral confidence”) past performance.

5.1.2 RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience demonstrated in the submitted form, ATTACHMENT 3 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. The Offeror must list their experience of similar project scope, complexity and magnitude. Additionally, the Offeror shall list their designer’s experience in designing projects of similar scope and complexity, which have already been constructed.

Submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than three (3) projects that have been completed and turned over or at least 75% complete. All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that completion should be no more than twelve (12) years preceding the date of this solicitation. The projects shall meet the descriptions of scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined below. At least one (1) project must be the supply and install of a Large Manufacturing Heat Treat System. Other Large construction projects submitted must predominately relate to industrial engineering.

For the design firm on the team – submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than

(3) previously designed projects that have been constructed within the last twelve (12) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer.

Letters of commitment (Signed by both the Subcontractor and Offeror) are required in order for the Government to consider Subcontractor experience in the proposal evaluation. Other divisions within the Offer’s company may be considered as subcontractors for the submitting division.

The projects submitted should include the following criteria. Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet many or all of the criteria would be given a higher degree of relevancy.

i. Similar scope is defined as a supply and install of a Large Manufacturing Heat Treat Furnace System with Austenitizing, Quenching, and Tempering components.

ii. Similar complexity is defined as supply and install of a Large Manufacturing Heat Treat Furnace System and all supporting activities associated with the furnace installation (i.e. gas, electric, foundation support) in an occupied facility.

This includes demonstrating the management and coordination of a multi-disciplined construction team.

iii. Similar magnitude shall be considered for furnace manufacturing greater than $10,000,000 or construction projects greater than $15,000,000. Offeror’s shall provide cost to each project submitted, for both the design, manufacturing, install, and construction projects submitted for consideration.

The Government will consider the experience demonstrated by the projects in its evaluation. Proposals will be highly rated when the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in all or nearly all of the aspects defining relevance and listed below. Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given strengths (the following list does not encompass all possible strengths):

i. The Offeror acted as a prime contractor in the majority of the example experiences;

ii. More than one (1) recent relevant experience is a large Manufacturing Heat Treat Furnace System.

iii. The Offeror provides an in-line furnace as Manufacturing Heat Treat Furnace example.

iv. The majority of the example experiences are projects performed at Watervliet Arsenal or with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

v. The majority of the experiences are projects performed within the last three years

vi. The experiences demonstrate previous experience between current proposal team members.

vii. The Offeror has Design-Build RFP experience.

viii. Furnace design and manufacturing projects were greater than $10,000,000 or construction projects were greater than $15,000,000

ix. The Offeror has experience in Supply Contracts

Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given weaknesses (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

i. Few or no projects are provided where the Offeror acted as Prime contractor.

ii. Furnace manufacturing projects were less than $10,000,000 or construction projects were less than $15,000,000

iii. Example experiences where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role was minor in comparison to the whole project.

iv. Example projects were performed by a Division of the company other than the

Division submitting the offer.

v. Example experiences are from proposed subcontractors in lieu of the Offeror.

vi. The example experiences do not demonstrate previous teaming experience between current proposal team members.

vii. Experience examples are not verifiable.

5.1.3 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM)

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the Offeror’s recent relevant performance record, the Government will make a determination as to the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned.

Where no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will receive a Neutral Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

5.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, SUMMARY AND PHASING

SCHEDULE

Submit a summary level schedule for the supply and install of the Gun Tube Heat Treat Furnace. The schedule must be task oriented, indicating number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedule pages must be legible on 11x17 sheets of paper. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule shall have the same minimal requirements described herein. The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed

it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding. The schedule at a minimum shall include the following activities.

i. Design/Post Award Kick-Off Meeting

ii. Preconstruction and Design Transmittals

iii. Value Engineering Study

iv. Design of Heat Treat Furnace

v. Conformance Review Conference

vi. Onsite Mobilization

vii. Start and End of Phase I Installation

viii. Commissioning of Phase 1

ix. Start and End of Phase II Installation

x. Decommissioning of existing furnace

xi. Commissioning of Phase 2

xii. Furnace turnover to Government

xiii. Contract Closeout

Submit a narrative discussing the projects critical path. The critical path must be shown on the summary level schedule. Discuss critical path activities that have the greatest risk to project delivery.

Discuss how your schedule mitigates those risks and what measures you will take to ensure the project is delivered on time. narrative discussing submittal procedures and linkage of submittal register to scheduled activities. In the narrative, discuss how the schedule accounts for management of the submittal process and lead time is reflected in the submittal register to meet activity early start date. Discuss internal procedures for preventing late submittal submission to minimize time growth.

Identify any constraints on the schedule presented (i.e. labor or material availability, weather, permits, etc.).

Submission must include the following for each activity: activity duration, early start, early finish, late start and late finish, float, predecessors and successors. This information can be provided in table format or graphically.

Submission must include a phasing plan for construction activities.

The narrative and summary schedule shall also discuss all preconstruction activities, design milestone dates, manufacturing durations, anticipated durations of the shut down of utilities/equipment, anticipated facility crane operation durations, and furnace commissioning activities.

Schedule should show turnover of new furnace activities. 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.

5.2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The SSEB will evaluate the schedule to assess the offeror’s understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (i.e. long lead items), etc.

The SSEB will evaluate the strength of understanding of all elements required in the submission and the offeror's…