W912DW22R0005 R0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W912DW22R0005R0005, CJD Generator Rew inds (1-16)

(see continuation page)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jan-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 W912DW22R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Nov-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

25-Jan-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:

W912DW22R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

R0005 W912DW22R0005R0005, CJD Generator Rewinds (1-16)

1. This amendment five (0005) provides for the following changes:

a. Inclusion of Rotor Pole Photos

b. Revision of Evaluation Criteria, Factor 2 – Technical Work Plan and Schedule.

c. Revision of FAR clause 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.

2. The proposal submittal time and date of 22 Feb 2022 at 10:00:00 AM LOCAL TIME remains the same.

3. The attached revised sections are to be replaced in their entirety. Specifications changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, and double underlining of text for additions or a single dark line in the margin. All portions of the revised sections shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

4. NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment by number and date on offer.

Encl:

Rotor Pole Photos (new) Evaluation Criteria (revised)

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION 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 participation 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 and Schedule, must obtain an evaluation rating of “Acceptable” or higher for Factor 3 Small Business Participation, 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 and Schedule - Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the technical approach 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 Participation – Evaluation of the proposal will include the review of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document and the extent of Small Business Participation. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

FACTOR 4: Cost/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. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

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 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 three (3) 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 as work described in Section 01 11 00.00 26 Summary of Work of the solicitation. 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’ below.

2.1.2 Past Performance Relevant Experience Submission Criteria

Criteria for the Offeror’s Factor 1:

a. Submit information of at least three (3),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 below; AND

d. Submitted projects shall be at least 75% physically completed, not based on amount invoiced, within the last ten (10) years prior to the solicitation issue date. At least 75% physically completed means at least 75% of the contractual requirements have been accomplished.

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.

2.1.3 Definitions

a) Scope is defined as:

The rewind of a large hydropwer generator of which the scope will be repeated multiple times.

b) An Offeror is defined as:

For the purpose of past performance evaluation, an ‘Offeror’ shall be defined as the Prime submitting 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.

c) 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.

d) 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)

e) Recent is defined as:

Project that has been completed within ten (10) 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.)

f) 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.

g) Quality of Performance is defined as:

The offeor’s quality or 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.

2.1.4 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. Offerors may expand the form as necessary to accommodate the required project information; however, the use of an alternate form will not be accepted.

Attachment A (example):

Past Performance Project Relevancy

Information Summary Form Project Name:

Project Location:

Address:

Installation Name (if applicable)

Owners/Client Point of Contract (POC):

POC Name:

POC Phone Number:

POC E-mail:

Contract Number: Task Order Number (if applicable):

Was the project terminated early, were cure/show-cause letters issued or were Liquidated Damages assessed?

Yes or No (if yes, explain)

Offeror’s Role: (Prime or Subcontractor) [What specific items of work did you perform as the prime or subcontractor]

Percentage of total value of contract performed by the Offeror: (If the Offeror was the Prime, what percentage was subcontracted; if the Offeror was the subcontractor, what dollar amount and percentage of the total project amount, as well as the total contract amount, was awarded to the subcontractor?)

Date Contract and/or Award began:

Original Completion Date:

Actual Completion Date (or ongoing, if applicable):

Initial Award Amount:

Final Contract Amount:

Amount added by modification(s):

Percentage the project is physically complete to date:

Explanation (reason) of any cost growth:

Explanation of any late finish or time extensions:

General Project Narrative: [General scope. Provide a description of the project. Be sure to include features of this project that make it comparable in type or nature to the proposed project described in this request for proposal. At a minimum provide a brief explanation of what was designed, manufactured, and installed including the rating, size, and type of equipment applicable to this experience criterion. Discuss specific details of the project, at a minimum, describe what was constructed and clearly explain the aspects that are similar to construction of this solicitation.]

Performance Issues Encountered: [Describe any performance issues encountered. This could include technical, cost/schedule, health and safety issues, regulatory/stakeholder issues, and other performance issues, as well as what was implemented to overcome these issues and the results.]

Applicable Section 01 11 00.00 26 Criteria: [highlight specific elements from the Section 01 11 00.00 26 of this RFP that encompasses each submitted past performance project]

Major Project Accomplishments:

END OF ATTACHMENT A

2.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaires, Tab 1b

For each submitted project, the Offeror shall request a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) ( Attachment D), 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, Monique Paano at Monique.A.Paano@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.

CPARS evaluations shall not be submitted by the Offeror in place of a PPQ

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 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 convenience or default/cause, the Offeror shall list each, providing the contract number, title, brief type of work effort, and the reason for the termination.

2.1.6 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.

2.1.7 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 2 – 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.

2.1.8 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 3 - 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.

Attachment D (PPQ-0)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

d. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information

Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

d. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information

Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE.

PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND

ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVAL RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

END OF ATTACHMENT D

2.2 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.

1) Technical Work Plan: The Offeror must submit a technical approach narrative to explain their company’s capabilities to execute the construction work required by the solicitation. Factor 2 shall not exceed forty (40) pages. Reference drawings and projected work schedule will not apply to the page limit. Address the following item, in a narrative format in conjunction with Section 48 13 16.00 26:

The offeror shall provide a complete description of the stator winding 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 the ground wall insulation application method (hand-wound, machine wound with/without scarf joint, other).

The stator winding installation process shall include details of side packing system, wedging system including type, and materials of wedges, number of check wedges per slot and end wedge securing method, brazing method and quality assurance procedures.

Offerors should present guaranteed combined I2R (R corrected to 75 deg. C) and stray load loss for their proposed winding in “kW” at 92,920 kVA, 0.95 power factor.

2) Project Schedule: Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. See FAR clause 52.211-10 for project durations.

This DRAFT schedule should be a detailed outline of the projected work schedule for this project identifying major work tasks, milestones that include completion of each hydro-generator, and dates. It should include the completion of all base- items and option items (units only) 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 April 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.

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.

A guaranteed combined I2R and stray load loss for the proposed winding that is 95% or less of the existing winding rating will be rated higher in the evaluation. Losses that are higher than 105% or greater of the existing winding rating will be rated lower and may be considered a weakness.

Schedules which detail major work items, logical sequences of work items and reasonable timeframes will be rated more favorably. Due to the multiplicity of projects going on at Chief Joseph Dam, a shorter duration schedule will be rated as neutral. If the overall schedule duration exceeds 9 years, the proposal will be rated unacceptable. If physical construction exceeds more than 8 years, but the overall schedule meets the 9 years duration, the proposal could be rated less favorably. Schedules that do not meet the schedule requirements of the schedule specification will be rated as a weakness.

Ratings Combined Technical/Risk Rating Definitions 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.

2.3 Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

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 Participation – Offeror must complete and submit the Small Business

Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), Attachment B, 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 5% 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.

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.

o A mandatory minimum total small business commitment goal of 5% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

o 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:

{1.5%} Small Disadvantaged Business {1.5%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {0.25%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {2.00%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {0.75%} 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.

2.4 Factor 4 – Cost/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…