W912DW22R0001 0004.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 this amendment 0004 is to update the follow ing componets of the solicitation.

1) The bid close has been changed to 3/30/2022 2PM PST.

2) Contract duration has increased to 750 days.

3) Clause 52.246-21 Warranty of Constructions w as added by referrence.

4) Factor 2 Work Plan revised.

5) Factor 4 Price; Correction w as made to remove Economic Price Adjustments.

6) The follow ing sections are replacing the orginal specs: 01 30 00, 42 13 19.00 26, 48 13 16.00 26, 22 00 00.00 26, & 41 22 13.75 26.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 26

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-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 X is extended, is not extended.

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-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 required response date/time has changed from 01-Mar-2022 02:00 PM to 30-Mar-2022 02:00 PM.

The contractor period of performance end date has increased by 250 days from 500 days to 750 days.

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by reference:

52.246-21 Warranty of Construction MAR 1994

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFEROR

1. General Description of Work

2. Disclosure of the Magnitude of the Project

3. Copies of Solicitation Documents and Amendments

4. Offeror’s Questions and Comments

5. Small Business Size Standard / NAICS Code: 237990

6. Proposal Expenses and Pre-Award Costs

7. Pre-Proposal Site Visit

8. Accuracy in Proposals

9. Proposal Submittals

10. Proposal Guarantee

11. Solicitation Provisions

1. General Description of Work:

Contract Title: Chief Joseph Dam Station Service Refurbishment – Turbines & Generators, Bridgeport, WA.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Northwestern Division (NWD), Seattle District (NWS) to refurbishment of the two station service units at Chief Joseph Powerhouse. The existing generators have a nameplate rating of 3.0 MVA and the existing turbines are Francis-type units with a nameplate rating of 3,500 HP at 171 feet of head. The following is a list of the major items of work included in this Contract. The work includes the removal of the existing components and systems of components which are known to have lead-based paint. The locations of lead-based paint cannot be specifically identified. The work includes:

General Work

1. Perform all work required for mobilization/demobilization.

2. Remove and dispose of items/systems to be discarded or replaced.

3. Provide platforms, tools and equipment as specified and required to perform the required work.

4. Clean turbine pit, generator, work and storage areas used by the

Contractor. Dispose of (recycle) grease, etc.

5. Perform pre outage testing and post reassembly generating unit commissioning.

6. Draft tube fall protection anchors.

Mechanical Work

1. Disassemble the generating units and turbines.

2. Inspect and refurbish turbine components.

3. Paint refurbished components.

4. Refurbishment of turbine guide bearings.

5. Provide new Teflon thrust shoes.

6. Refurbish upper and lower generator guide bearings.

7. Furnish bearing RTDs and replace existing RTDs with platinum RTDs.

8. Reassemble generating units.

9. Perform complete alignment of generating units.

10. Perform pre and post refurbishment generating unit operational tests.

11. Disassemble, clean, inspect, refurbish and reinstall all generator brakes and associatedappurtenances.

12. Brake ring inspection, with optional refurbishment.

13. Provide new thrust bearing oil coolers.

14. Provide new surface air coolers.

15. Provide new float switches in the bearing tubs.

16. Provide new below the hook lifting devices.

17. Provide new turbine guide bearing coolers.

2. Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction:

In accordance with FAR 36.204 “Disclosure of the Magnitude of Construction Projects,” the magnitude of the project is estimated between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.

3. Copies of Solicitation Documents and Amendments:

Copies of the solicitation and amendments are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All solicitation documents will be posted to the U.S.

Government’s Contract Opportunities website at: www.sam.gov under Solicitation Number W912DW22R0001. A list of interested vendors (potential offerors and subcontractors) is available on the web site (registration required) with the solicitation announcement.

It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the websites for any amendments. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

4. Offeror’s Questions and Comments:

Bidder Inquiry

I. Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.projnet.org/projnet.

a. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. To self-register go to web page, click BID tab select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and then click continue.

b. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

c. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

http://www.projnet.org/projnet

d. The Solicitation Number is: W912DW22R0001

e. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: HEMY8U-E62CH2

II. The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires 3 business days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

III. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

IV. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM

U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 833-389-1097 or 217-367- 3273. Email: staff@projnet.info (preferred)

V. No information regarding award will be available until the source selection process is complete and an award has been made. In accordance with FAR 15.506, post award release of information regarding evaluations will be governed by the debriefing process.

5. Small Business Size Standard / NAICS Code:

NAICS Code 237990(Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) Small business size standard is $39,500,000.00

6. Proposal Expenses and Pre-Award Costs:

This Request for Proposals (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay, as a direct charge, any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

mailto:staff@projnet.info

7. Pre-Proposal Site Visit:

A Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit will be conducted on January 6th 2022 at 10:00am PST.

Due to COVID-19, social distancing will be strictly observed and the gathering will remain outdoors. Guidelines are as follows:

• Each Offeror will be limited to two representatives, including all subs and partners, for each site visit.

• In order to prevent any large gatherings, all participants must provide their own transportation to the Chief Joseph Dam security Control Point for vehicle and participant clearance, proceed to the Commons Building, and remain at their vehicles until the Government escorts everyone in "caravan" to the Powerhouse.

• Once parked, all participants will remain at their vehicle until Government representatives form small sub-groups no more than six persons per sub-group to walk through the project site.

• Attendance for each sub-group will be recorded by the Government rep for each group through verbal communication.

• Masks covering both nose and mouth will be worn at all times while on site.

• Social distancing (at least six feet distance) will be strictly observed.

• Restroom facilities may not be readily available.

The Government retains the right to cancel this event should Washington State and the Seattle District COVID19 posture regress to a more restrictive level.

The Corps of Engineers (COE) on-site point of contact is Daniel Scott Bennett at email Daniel.S.Bennett@usace.army.mil

OFFERORS ARE URGED AND EXPECTED to inspect the site where construction is to be performed and to satisfy themselves as to all general and local conditions which may affect the cost of performance of the Contract, to the extent such information is reasonably obtainable.

8. Accuracy in Proposals:

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP (including attachments). Offeror must include all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

9. Proposal Submittals

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, it is recommended 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 Charles Idle at Charles.D.Idle@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer Camilla (Cam) Allen at Camilla.allen@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) 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 a request code five (5) working days before the 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 e-mail notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identifiable Information (PII) in the File Description).

REQUIRED RECIPIENTS: Offerors must include the following emails as recipients for transmittal Charles Idle at Charles.D.Idle@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer Camilla (Cam) Allen at Camilla.allen@usace.army.mil . If these addresses are not included as recipients, the proposal may not be received by the Seattle District contracting office.

FILE NAMING CONVENTION: Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples below. To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:

W912DW22R0001-FIRMNAME-Proposal Volume I W912DW22R0001-FIRMNAME-Proposal Volume II

See Section 00 21 16 for detailed content requirements for Volumes I and II.

mailto:Camilla.allen@usace.army.mil

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 e-mail settings.

3. When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the e-mail address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The Contract Specialist for this solicitation is Charles Idle at Charles.D.Idle@usace.army.mil and the Contracting Officer is camilla.allen@usace.army.mil <mailto:camilla.allen@usace.army.mil> . 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 e-mail address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail address and the email addresses of your recipients. Entering an incorrect e-mail may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. 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 and successfully transmitted to the required recipients. 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 communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure its proposal is received at the designated Government office prior to the exact time specified for receipt of offers. Offerors should verify that their proposals have been received by the Government before the deadline by contacting Charles.d.idle@usace.army.mil and Camilla.allen@usace.army.mil.

mailto:camilla.allen@usace.army.mil mailto:camilla.allen@usace.army.mil mailto:Charles.d.idle@usace.army.mil

10. Bid Guarantee:

The Standard Form (SF) 24, dated 08/2016, shall be used for the submission of your bid bond and can be obtained from https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms#SF. Submit the bid bond via email with your proposal

Please see provision 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee (SEP 1996), in Section 00 21 00. Bid Bonds (SF24) must be accompanied by a Power of Attorney containing an original OR electronic signature from the surety, which must be affixed to the Power of Attorney after the Power of Attorney has been generated. Computer generated and signed Powers of Attorney will be accepted if accompanied by a certification from a current officer of the surety attesting to its authenticity and continuing validity. Digital scans, or photographed or otherwise reproduced images, of ink signatures are not considered acceptable "electronic signatures." If a required submitted document does not contain electronic signatures, you must submit original hard-copy documents.

11. Solicitation Provisions

See the applicable Provisions for this Solicitation in Section 00 21 00 and Section 00 45 00.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

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 http://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms#SF 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 fourty (40) 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.