W912DW22R0001 0003.pdf

W912DW22R0001

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of amendment 0003 is to update the follow ing componets of the soliciation:

1) Update Bid Schedule to reflect base bid items represent 2 station service units (Unit 1 & Unit 2) and added Electrical Work Bid Items 0181, 0182, & 0183.

2) Updated 01 22 00.00 26 Measure & Pay.

3) Updated Criteria Schedule Section.

4) Updated 09 97 02.00 26 Paint Spec to remove sandblasting.

5) Asbestos results for the Station Service Project.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Feb-2022

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 W912DW22R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Dec-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Feb-2022

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The following have been modified:

PRICE SCHEDULE

SECTION 00 41 00.00 26

SITE WORK AND STRUCTURAL (UNITS 1 & 2)

TOTAL SITE WORK AND STRUCTUAL $__________________________________________________

Item No. Description Est Qty UOM Price Amount

0100 Site Mobilization to Accomplish Work 1 Job $ $

0101 Site Demobilization to Restore Equipment, Cleanup and Restore Site to Original condition 1 Job $ $

Pre-Disassembly Investigation, Measurements, Disassemble Turbine and Generator Unit, and Inspect Components

1 Job $ $

0103 Reassemble Generating Unit, Operational Testing After Reassembly, and Furnish O&M Manuals 1 Job $ $

0104 Special Tools, Handling Devices, and Temporary Scaffolding 1 Job $ $

0105 Disposal of old grease and grease systems and piping 1 Job $ $

0106 Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices 1 Job $ $

0107 Spare Components for Turbine and Generator 1 Job $ $

MECHANICAL WORK (UNITS 1 & 2)

Item No. Description Est

Qty UOM Price Amount

0120 New Wicket Gates 1 Job $ $

0121 Runner Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0122 Furnish Upper and Lower Stationary Wearing Rings 1 Job $ $

0123 Headcover Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0124 Bottom Ring Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0125 Turbine Air Inlet Valve Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0126 Replacement Head Cover Studs and Nuts 1 Job $ $

0127 Supply and Install Turbine Shaft Sleeve 1 Job $ $

0128 Operating Ring Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0129 Turbine Shaft Inspection and Machining 1 Job $ $

0130 Machining and Chrome Plating Gate Servo Piston Rod 1 Job $ $

0131 Wicket Gate Operating Mechanism Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0132 Design and Provide Generator Air Cooler 1 Job $ $

0133 Design and Provide Thrust Bearing Oil Coolers 1 Job $ $

PRICE SCHEDULE

MECHANICAL WORK (UNITS 1 & 2)

Item No. Description Est Qty UOM Price Amount

0134 Machining With Boring Bar 1 Job $ $

0135 Setup for Machining and Machining up to 0.020" of Stay Ring to Bottom Mounting Flanges 4 EA $ $

0136 Setup for Machining and Machining up to 0.020" of Stay Ring to Head Cover Mounting Flanges 4 EA $ $

0137 Replace Runner Coupling Fastener and Key 1 Job $ $

0138 Generator Air Brake and Jacking System Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0139 Inspect Generator Brake Rings 1 Job $ $

0140 Inspect, Ship Equalizer Ring Assembly 1 Job $ $

0141 Provide New Teflon Faced PTFE Thrust Bearing Shoes 1 Job $ $

Shipment and Refurbishment of Thrust Bearing Runner and Thrust Collar Including Resurface Running Faces, Resurface Mounting Faces, Furnish New Bolts/Hardware

1 Job $ $

0143 Inspect, Ship, and Refurbish Upper and Lower Generator Guide Bearings 1 Job $ $

0144 Inspect, Ship, and Refurbish Turbine Guide Bearing 1 Job $ $

0145 Replace Turbine Pit Piping and Accessories 1 Job $ $

0146 Replace Main Cooling Water Piping and Valves 1 Job $ $

0147 Refurbish Wicket Gate Servomotor 1 Job $ $

TOTAL MECHANICAL WORK $__________________________________________________

PRICE SCHEDULE

ELECTRICAL WORK – GENERATORS (UNITS 1 & 2)

Item No. Description Est Qty UOM Price Amount

0170 Design, Manufacture, and Perform Voltage Endurance Testing on 4 Prototype Coils 1 Job $ $

Furnish Complete Set Of Stator Coils Including Supplies and Accessories For A Complete New Winding Including Factory Testing

1 Job $ $

0172 Furnish and Install New Stator Core 1 Job $ $

0173 Install and Test New Stator Winding 1 Job $ $

0174 Clean and Inspect Rotor, Replace Field Leads, and Test Rotor Field Poles 1 Job $ $

0175 Perform Special Field Tests 1 Job $ $

0176 Furnish and Install General Wiring, RTDs, Conduit, Gauges, and Switches 1 Job $ $

0177 Collector Ring Refurbishment 1 Job $ $

0178 Replacement of Neutral Breaker 1 Job $ $

0179 Furnish and Install New Medium Voltage Cables 1 Job $ $

0180 Furnish and Install New Generator Auxiliary Equipment 1 Job $ $

0181 As-Built Drawings 1 Job $75,000 $75,000

0182 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals 1 Job $50,000 $50,000

0183 Training for Government Personnel 1 Job $ $

TOTAL ELECTRICAL WORK – GENERATORS $_____________________________________________

PRICE SCHEDULE

OPTIONAL WORK

Item No. Description Est Qty UOM Price Amount

0200 Miscellaneous Welding 40 LBS $ $

0201 Machinist Hire 40 HRS $ $

0202 Electrician Hire 40 HRS $ $

0203 Welding Services 40 HRS $ $

0204 Painter Hire 40 HRS $ $

0205 Other Skilled Craftsmen Hire 40 HRS $ $

0206 General Laborer Hire 40 HRS $ $

0207 Liquid Penetrant Method 40 HRS $ $

0208 Magnetic Particle Method 40 HRS $ $

0209 Ultrasonic Method 40 HRS $ $

0210 Weld Spraying 100 HRS $ $

0211 Generator Brake Ring Refurbishment 2 Each $ $

0212 Additional Stay Ring to Head Cover Mounting Surface Machining, .010" 4 Each $ $

0213 Additional Stay Ring to Bottom Ring Flange Machining, .010" 4 Each $ $

0214 Additional Head Cover to Stay Ring Flange Machining, .010" 4 Each $ $

0215 Wicket Gate Servomotor Bore Machining 2 Each $ $

0216 Re-insulate Rotor Field Poles 2 Each $ $

0217 Draft Tube Vacuum Breaker Piping Replacement 2 Each $ $

TOTAL OPTIONAL WORK $___________________________________________________________

PRICE ITEMS TOTAL AMOUNT

TOTAL SITE WORK AND STRUCTUAL $

TOTAL MECHANICAL WORK $

TOTAL ELECTRICAL WORK – GENERATORS $

BASE TOTAL $

OPTIONAL TOTAL $

BASE PLUS OPTIONAL TOTAL $

NOTES:

1. In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total, the unit price will be held to be the intended price. If the offer shows only the total price but fails to enter a unit price, the total divided by the estimated quantity and rounded down to the nearest penny will be held to be the intended unit price.

2. Any proposal price for items indicated above which are unbalanced as to price may be rejected as non-responsive. An unbalance price is one which is based on price significantly less than cost for some work and price which significantly overstated for other work.

3. 100% Design Projects cannot be altered, changed or re-designed in any way. No alternate proposals will be accepted.

4. Award of optional items will be made in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASE

QUANTITY.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Past performance is more important than technical approach and schedule with small business commitment being the least important. The non-price factors when combined will be significantly more important than price. To receive consideration for award, the proposal must obtain an evaluation rating of “Neutral Confidence” or higher for Factor 1 Past Performance, must obtain an evaluation rating of “Acceptable” or higher for Factor 2 Technical Approach Work Plan and Schedule, must obtain an evaluation rating of “Acceptable” or higher for Factor 3 Small Business Commitment, and must have a price that is considered fair and reasonable. Award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICE FACTORS

WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

FACTOR 1: Past Performance - Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and quality.

FACTOR 2: Technical Approach Work Plan and Schedule - Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the technical approach Work Plan and schedule as it applies to the Summary of Work (SOW).

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

FACTOR 3: Small Business Commitment – Evaluation of the proposal will include the review of the Small Business Commitment Document and the extent of Small Business Commitment. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

FACTOR 4: Price - The resulting contract will be fixed-price with economic price adjustment. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal. Offers will also be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

C. DEFINITIONS

The following definitions will be used to evaluate each proposal:

a) An Offeror is defined as:

For the purpose of past experience and past performance evaluation, an ‘Offeror’ shall be defined as business arrangements and relationships, such as: a) Joint Venture participants;

and b) teaming partners and major subcontractors with which formalized teaming agreements exist or a signed letter of commitment with the Prime submitting the proposal shall be provided with the proposal. The past experience and past performance record of each firm meeting the definition in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

b) Prime is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, a ‘Prime’ shall be defined as the Firm or any of the Firms making up a Joint Venture (JV) submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

c) A Project is defined as:

In order to be deemed a ‘project’, it must meet one, and only one, of the following:

a. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performed at one single site;

b. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work at multiple sites within one single installation or facility;

c. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at one single site (the following also will qualify as a non-‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule;

or Purchase Order);

d. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple sites within one single installation or facility (the following also will qualify as a non-‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule; or Purchase Order);

e. 1 single Task Order against an IDC (a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities, states, etc.; OR

f. 1 single “C” type contract (not a “D” contract) covering work performed at multiple but separate installations, meaning the installations are in different cities, states, etc. (the following also will qualify as a non- ‘D’-type: a Cooperative Agreement or Grant; single BPA/BOA Call; single order against a GSA Schedule;

or Purchase Order)

d) Recent is defined as:

Project that has been completed within seven (7) years of the solicitation issue date, or one where the construction is at least 75% complete (measured by performance period days) as of the solicitation issue date. (Offerors are responsible for providing start and completion dates for each completed project, or the start and scheduled completion dates for projects currently under construction.)

e) Relevant is defined as:

Projects that are similar in scope (type, size, complexity, and dollar value) to the project described in this solicitation. For a project to be assessed any degree of “relevancy”, it must reflect performance of construction type work similar to the project required by this solicitation.

f) Quality of Performance is defined as:

The offeror’s quality of work, as well as the offeror’s management of a quality control program, while performing as a contractor on past contracts. Quality will be reviewed for all past performance information collected to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance. The evaluation of quality will be used to determine if the offeror has demonstrated consistent quality of performance that conformed to contractual requirements. Specific to construction contracts/orders, the evaluation of an offeror’s quality of performance may include and consider the following aspects based on information obtained from past projects:

- Has a quality product been provided?

- Did the contractor maintain a quality control system during contract performance?

If yes, how well were the following areas performed:

Contractor’s ability to maintain quality control Performance of accessory testing Implementation of 3-phase inspection process CQC (Contractor Quality Control) documentation Identification and correction of deficient work Reviews of materials and shop drawings Whether there was incorporation of unspecified materials

For establishing the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance, the evaluation conducted does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers and through review of assessment reports (i.e.

CPARs) to determine how well the offeror performed on past contracts. A separate quality assessment rating will not be given, rather, Factor 1 Past Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall evaluation of recency, relevance, and quality of performance.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Non-Price Evaluation Factors are as follows:

2.1 Factor 1- Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required work during performance of the awarded contract. The past performance evaluation considers an offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services required to meet the contract’s requirements. The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality of performance (including general trends in contractor performance ratings and source information). These will be combined to establish one past performance rating for each Offeror.

2.1.1. Relevancy of Past Performance, Tab 1a

The Offeror shall submit information on at least two (2) projects, but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience. If more than five (5) projects are submitted only the first five projects will be evaluated. Relevant means that submitted projects are similar in terms of scope, and complexity of work as described in Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work of the solicitation and Section 2.1.1.a and 2.1.1.b. The relevancy of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance projects will be rated based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e. how well the project’s scope is described) and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work, as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e. how many of the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope). Offerors shall ensure each project meets the definition of a ‘project’ above.

a. Generator Stator Rewind (1 projects minimum) - The projects submitted shall demonstrate recent experience designing, manufacturing, testing, and installing multi-turn coil type hydro-generator stator windings and stator cores, inspecting and testing field windings, disassembly, reassembly, and post reassembly testing of the hydro-generators. The project experience must have been performed on hydro-generators of different designs and at different locations, with rated voltages of 4.16 kV or greater and with output ratings of 3.0 MVA or larger.

b. Turbine Refurbishment (1 projects minimum) - The projects submitted shall demonstrate experience in turbine refurbishment, including alignment, disassembly, reassembly, and post reassembly testing of turbines. The project experience must have been performed on a turbine with output ratings of a minimum 3,500 Horsepower.

2.1.1.1. Past Performance Relevant Experience Submission Criteria

Criteria for the Offeror’s Factor 1:

a. Submit information of at least two (2), but no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate the offeror’s relevant past work experience and subsequent performance.

b. Ensure submitted projects are relevant to the work requirements noted in Section 01 11

00.00 26 of the RFP individually or in combination thereof.

c. Ensure each submitted project meets the definition of a ‘project’, as defined above; AND

d. Submitted projects shall be completed within the last seven (7) years prior to the solicitation issue date, or at least 75% physically complete. At least 75% physically completed means at least 75% of the contractual requirements have been accomplished and is not based on amount invoiced.

e. Submit Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary Form (Attachment A) for each submitted project.

f. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1a should be limited to four (4) pages per project.

2.1.1.2. Past Performance Project Relevancy Information Summary:

The Past Performance Project Relevance Information Summary Form (Attachment A) must be used, completed in its entirety, and submitted as part of Factor 1 for each project.

The information obtained from this form is required to evaluate relevancy. In the form offerors shall clearly identify if the firm(s) will be utilized during performance of the contract. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information; however, the use of an alternate form will not be accepted.

2.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaires, Tab 1b

For each submitted project, the Offeror shall request a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment B), from those Government agencies or private sector companies’ Point of Contact identified for each project. These agency or company contacts must have detailed information concerning the performance of the project in order to accurately complete the PPQ for the Offeror.

The POCs may be contacted by the SSEB to assess the scope of work performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the previous experience tab of this volume, if necessary;

therefore, it is imperative to ensure correct telephone and email addresses are identified for the client POCs on each PPQ.

The Offeror may also provide a narrative for each project which a PPQ submitted under Tab 1b Past Performance Questionnaire that could include past performance information such as if it was completed on-time/budget, whether or not the Offeror encountered any performance issues or challenges, and key and/or best management practices the Offeror employed to sustain successful performance for each past performance project submitted. If performance issues, customer dissatisfaction or challenges did arise, provide information on what corrective action was implemented or how they were addressed and outcomes. All submitted information for each project provided in Tab 1b should be limited to 2 pages per project. The narrative information will count toward the page limit; however, the PPQs are excluded from the page count.

Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal by the proposal due date. Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. However, If the Offeror’s client requests, he/she may submit the questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Charles Idle at Charles.d.idle@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

PPQs previously completed for projects in Tab 1a by the project’s POC may be submitted in lieu of requesting the POC to re-complete the form; however, 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.

If one or more of the client’s POCs do not reply to the Offeror’s request to complete the PPQ, the Government may elect to contact them utilizing the reference information provided for each submitted project. Therefore, the Offeror must ensure the information provided for each project is accurate (i.e. POC name, telephone number, email address, etc.).

In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review and consider any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE Codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming mailto:Charles.d.idle@usace.army.mil arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror (including information from Government personnel and databases).

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 Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal and, if applicable, information obtained from available sources identified previously. A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

In addition to the project information requested in this section, the Offeror shall also provide notification and information concerning any projects where it’s right to proceed was terminated for the convenience of the Government or for default/cause during the last six (6) years, or so state that there were none. If any contracts were terminated, whether for default or cause, the Offeror shall list each, providing the contract number, title, brief type of work effort, and the reason for the termination.

2.1.2.1. Past Performance Ratings

Past Performance considers ‘how well’ an Offeror performed and executed requirements on previous contracts, whereas Past Experience considers ‘what’ the Offeror performed and executed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet or exceed the contract’s requirements, resulting in a Relevancy Rating. A Performance Confidence Rating is also assigned for each Offeror’s Past Performance after assessing and evaluating their past performance, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the contract requirements. As a result, an Offeror’s Past Performance rating will consist of two components: 1) a relevancy rating; and 2) a confidence assessment rating. An assigned Past Performance Factor rating will be comprised of one rating from Table 2 (relevancy) and one rating from Table 3 (confidence assessment) resulting in a Relevancy/Confidence Assessment rating (i.e.

Relevant/Substantial Confidence. Somewhat Relevant/Limited Confidence, etc.).

The Government will consider past performance information as submitted in accordance with Section 00 21 16 Instruction to proposers of this solicitation and may also consider recent and relevant past performance information outside of the information provided by the Offeror and its customers. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror as their Past Performance for evaluation, as well as information that may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, CPARS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

2.1.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance information to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be performed under this contract. The relevancy of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance projects will be rated based on the completeness and technical details of each project’s narrative describing the work performed (i.e. how well the project’s scope is described and how pertinent the work is to the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work), as well as the depth and breadth of each project’s scope (i.e. how many of the Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work technical requirements are covered by the project’s scope). Criteria establishing what is recent and what aspects are considered relevant is stated in Volume I, Factor 1 – Past Performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contract past performance per DoD Source Selection Procedures as reproduced in Table 2 below:

TABLE 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT

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

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

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

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

NOT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.1.2.3. Confidence

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of the source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment.

Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record, or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3 below.

TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will 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.

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

3. Factor 2 – Technical Work Plan and Schedule

This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outline all major work necessary to complete those tasks. The work plan shall be separated into two sections: 1) Technical Work Plan and 2) Project schedule. The information submitted for Factor 2 (Work Plan) including work plan and schedule shall be limited to thirty

(30) pages total. Offerors shall submit the following for Factor 2:

1) Work plan addressing the following items:

a. Discuss how work to complete one task may impact or be impacted by work to complete other tasks.

b. Identify any critical assumptions and uncertainties that may impact the completion of work. For each uncertainty, describe the Offeror’s plan to mitigate the associated risk posed by the uncertainty.

(1) Specifically addressing mitigating potential impacts of other Contractors adjacent to the work area will be rated more favorably (i.e. restacking the stator core and rewinding the stator winding offsite).

Stator Winding and Core Manufacturing and Installation Details: The offeror shall provide a complete description of the stator winding and stator core manufacturing and installation process. The stator winding manufacturing process shall include details such as coil insulation system, including strand, turn and groundwall insulation material and thickness;

cross section dimensions; designed dielectric stress of the ground-wall insulation at rated voltage; and the ground wall insulation application method (hand-wound, machine wound with/without scarf joint, other). The stator core manufacturing process shall include details such as type of steel (high grade non-aging silicon steel), lamination manufacturing method, burr control, lamination coating process, and insulation. The stator winding installation process shall include details of side packing system, wedging system including type, dimensions, and materials of wedges, total number of wedges per slot, number of check wedges per slot and end wedge securing method, spring deflection measurement method, brazing method and quality assurance procedures. The stator core installation process shall include such detail as the key bar placement determination, lamination stacking process and alignment, final core pressing and clamping, and final core alignment checks, measurements of circularity, concentricity, and verticality.

c. Document capabilities and availability of resources (manufacturing, equipment and personnel) necessary to complete all required major tasks identified in the schedule.

d. List all major subcontractors with their respective role and responsibility to complete all major tasks. A signed letter of commitment from the subcontractor who is proposed to perform the work is required for any major element of subcontractor work. For example, if the prime contractor proposes to use a subcontractor for the fabrication or the design of the required equipment, the offeror shall submit a signed

Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal. The letter of commitment must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a joint venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary).

If letters of commitment are not submitted for major subcontractors, this will be considered a deficiency and could result in an unfavorable evaluation.

2) Project Schedule: Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. This DRAFT schedule should be a detailed outline of the projected work schedule for this project identifying major work tasks, milestones that include completion dates of each station service unit. It should include the completion of all base items of work and depict nodes and activities necessary to complete each phase of work (design, supply, and installation) as described in the specification and correspond to the offeror’s discussion of critical path and assumptions in the technical approach. This draft schedule shall be the basis for the contractor’s schedule submission and comply with

SECTION 01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE.

For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 1 May 2022. Consistent with the PROJECT SCHEDULE Specification the offeror’s DRAFT schedule should clearly delineate:

a. Activity durations.

b. Activity relationships,

c. Resource and activity constraints.

d. Critical path and Government owned actions throughout the process as described in the specification.

At a minimum, the schedule shall include the following major activities:

i. Pre-construction submittals

ii. Temporary Maintenance Platform fabrication

iii. Below-the-hook lifting devices

iv. Off-site manufacturing and procurement of long lead time items

v. Unit Disassembly activities

vi. Turbine Activities

vii. Generator Activities

viii. Exciter Activities

ix. Commissioning activities including load testing

The Government will determine the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, if any, in the approach presented, and then assign an overall combined technical/risk rating as listed below. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum technical requirements.

Schedules which detail major work items, logical sequences of work items and reasonable timeframes will be rated more favorably. Schedules that do not meet the schedule requirements of the schedule specification will be rated as a weakness.

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

4. Factor 3 – Small Business Commitment

The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by small businesses in relation to the total value of the project, as well as the types of work small businesses will be performing and the extent of commitment in using the identified small business firms.

NOTE: Per 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors need not submit any information in connection with this factor and shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor.

Submission Requirements:

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD) – Offeror must complete and submit the Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD), Attachment C, to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Commitment goal of 8% of the total contract value (through small business commitment from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUBZone-, Service-Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses) is required based on the nature of the work for this project.

2) Small Business Past Performance – Submit past performance information reflecting the Offeror’s small business commitment for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1, Past Performance. For each project submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, submit the following:

(a) Name of the project;

(b) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value self-performed;

(c) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted;

(d) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted to small businesses;

(e) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract value subcontracted to other than small businesses.

In addition to the above project submission information, the Government reserves the right to review Offerors Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

Evaluation Method:

Other than small business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment by U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as well as Offerors’ past performance complying with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Other than small business Offerors will be rated using the small business rating method table below.

(1) NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

• The extent of the Offeror’s proposed commitment of small businesses in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in both percentage and dollar value.

The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the mandatory minimum small business goal and the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

A mandatory minimum total small business commitment goal of 8% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

In addition to the mandatory small business goal, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are based on % of TOTAL contract value:

{2%} Small Disadvantaged Business {2%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {0%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {2.%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {1%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

The extent to which proposed small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name.

The extent of commitment to use the identified small business firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments).

Note, an enforceable and/or long-term commitment is a written and signed agreement (by the Prime and subcontractor) that details that all parties have agreed to a business relationship for this procurement. This document must be clear that both parties have defined and agreed to the extent of the relationship to include the type or types of work the subcontractors/partners shall perform and what areas of the contract they will cover. The agreement shall be specific in nature.

The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are proposed to perform (for example: work requiring specific certifications, i.e., welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc. to expand competitive pool).

The extent of the Offeror’s past compliance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

(2) 5. Factor 4 – Price

This Source Selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition – normally competition establishes price reasonableness and a comparison of proposed prices will satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1). All offers with separately priced line items or subline items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Administrative Requirements (Including Price). Prior to making an award, the Contracting Officer must determine that any Offeror is responsible both financially and technically and has the capability to properly manage the contract during performance and complete the work on time.

The Offeror is to submit the following information: (1) Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment C) and acknowledgement of all amendments (2) proposal price schedules, (3) representations and certification, and (4) most recent Financial Statement. In Volume II, Offerors shall also submit the required pre-award information, which includes but is not limited to:

(1) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within the organization who are familiar with company’s performance. For a newly formed Joint Venture (JV), each JV partner must submit a list of present commitments.

(2) The proposed price on this solicitation exceeds $1,000,000.00; therefore, the Offeror shall also submit a certified statement listing: (1) each contract awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three-month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and

(2) each contract awarded to the Offeror within the preceding three-year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(3) Bid Bonds as required by Section 00 21 16.

(4) Representations and Certifications as required by Section 00 45 00.

(5) Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Disclosure: The Offeror shall provide a disclosure statement with its proposal that concisely describes all the relevant facts concerning any past or present OCIs relating to this solicitation. If applicable, in the same statement, the Offeror shall provide information to assure the government that the conflicts of interest have been mitigated and/or neutralized to the maximum extent possible. If a conflict of interest is discovered after award of this contract, the Contracting Officer will decide on whether or not to terminate the contract. If no conflicts of interest exist, the Offeror shall provide a statement stating no Conflicts of Interest exist.

(6) Pricing Schedule (proposal pricing schedule).

Financial Statement. Submit a copy of your most recent financial statements. The statements must include a Balance Sheet and Income Statement. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number). If the financial statements are more than 60 days old, attach a certificate stating that the financial condition is substantially the same, or if not the same, describe the changes which have taken place since the financial statements were prepared.

Bank Letters. Provide evidence of adequate financing arrangements, such as commitments from lending institutions, etc., to perform this contract. Include the names of banks or other financial institutions with which business is conducted (mailing addresses, points of contact and phone number).

Reference letters should include, but is not limited to, the following information: (1) the date the Offeror’s account was open with the financial institution, (2) the average balance for the last 12 months on the offeror’s account (i.e., balance in the xx digits), (3) if there is a credit line established with the financial institution, what is the credit amount and how much is available at this time? If not, would the financial institution be willing to establish a line of credit for the offeror?