16-R-0025_Amendment_0001.pdf

W68SBV60758037

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 is to incorporate the changesto the solicitation as outlined in the summary of changes.

The proposal submission date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jul-2016

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 W912EF-16-R-0025

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Jun-2016

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

08-Jul-2016

CODE

USAED, WALLA WALLA - CONTRACTING DIV.

HILLARY A. MORGAN

201 N. THIRD AVENUE

WALLA WALLA WA 99362

W912EF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EF-16-R-0025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

See highlighted changes.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) factors: Technical Experience; Schedule, Past Performance; Small Business Participation Plan; and Price.

Factor 1, Technical Experience, and Factor 2, Schedule are approximately equal in importance.

All sub-factors of Factor 1, Technical Experience, are equal in importance. Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3, Past Performance. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan. When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1 through 4) are significantly more important than Factor 5, Price. As proposals become more equal in their technical (non-price) merit, the evaluated price becomes more important in determining the best value proposal.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-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 and sub-factors described below.

All non-price factors other than Factor 3, Past Performance, shall be rated using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Acceptable

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

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

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

FACTOR 1 – Technical Experience

Sub-factor 1A: Transformer Design and Manufacturing Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine transformer design and manufacturer experience relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s transformer design and manufacturer experience.

Offerors shall clearly identify the transformer manufacturing firm(s) that will be utilized during performance of the contract to design, manufacture and test the transformers. If the prime contractor proposes to self-perform manufacturing of the required transformer, ensure the proposal is clear that the Offeror will be performing this function. If the prime contractor proposes to use a subcontractor for the manufacturing of the required transformer, the offeror must submit a signed Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal.

If a subcontractor is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the prime and subcontractor working successfully together previously on relevant projects, , than an offer with a prime and subcontractor with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

If a joint venture is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the joint venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a joint venture with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

Offerors with ISO 9001 Certification of Design and Manufacturing Facility certified as of the date of proposal submission will be rated more favorably than a manufacturing facility that does not possess this certification.

Offerors demonstrating more experience designing and manufacturing 3,000 kVA and larger Class I power transformers will be rated more favorably than less experience.

Offerors demonstrating more design experience with bus ducts with transformer throats, cooling using double tube, safety heat exchangers cooled by fresh water nature will be rated more favorably than less experience.

Offerors demonstrating design experience with OFWF cooling will be rated more favorably than offerors with no OFWF cooling experience.

Offerors must demonstrate transformer manufacturer experience of at least ten (10) transformers manufactured in the last six (6) years that meet the relevancy required as defined below.

Each reference project used to demonstrate transformer design and manufacturing experience must include relevant scope of work, but it not required to involve all of the fully relevant elements defined in this subfactor. Proposals will be determined to be acceptable if ten (10) referenced projects combined demonstrate fully relevant experience as defined in this sub factor. Proposals that demonstrate fully relevant experience across more than ten (10) projects will be considered more favorable. Fully relevant transformer manufacturing experience is defined as projects including all of the following:

a. Design and Manufacturing. Class I power transformers of a minimum of 3,000 kVA and larger.

b. Ratings. Transformer ratings (kVA, primary/secondary voltage, current, Basic Impulse Level (BIL), temperature rise, and cooling class.

c. Transformer Design and Manufacture with Throats. Experience designing and manufacturing transformers with throats for bus ducts.

d. Transformer Design and Manufacture with water cooling. Experience designing and manufacturing oil immersed transformers with heat exchangers cooled by fresh water.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant transformer manufacturing experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as configuration and dimensions to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

Sub-factor 1B: Installation Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine installation contractor experience relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s installation experience.

Offerors shall clearly identify the installation firm(s) that will be utilized during performance of the contract. If the prime contractor proposes to self-perform installation of the required transformer, ensure the proposal is clear that the Offeror will be performing this function. If the prime contractor proposes to use a subcontractor for the installation of the required transformer, the offeror must submit a signed Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal.

If a subcontractor is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the prime and subcontractor working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a prime and subcontractor with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

If a joint venture is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the joint venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a joint venture with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

Offerors demonstrating experience with bus duct connections will be rated more favorably than an offer that does not demonstrate experience with this type of connection.

Offerors demonstrating experience with connection to fresh water cooling systems will be rated more favorably than an offer that does not demonstrate experience with this type of connection.

Offerors demonstrating experience installing 3,000 KVA and larger Class I and Class II power transformers will be rated more favorably.

Offerors demonstrating experience installing oil-immersed transformers will be rated more favorably than less experience.

Offerors must demonstrate installation experience of at least three (3) installation projects in the last ten (10) years that meet the relevancy required as defined below.

Each reference project used to demonstrate installation experience must include relevant scope of work, but it’s not required to involve all of the fully relevant elements defined in this subfactor. Proposals will be determined to be acceptable if three (3) referenced projects combined demonstrate fully relevant experience as defined in this sub factor.

Proposals that demonstrate fully relevant experience across more than three (3) projects will be considered more favorable. Fully relevant installation experience is defined as projects including all of the following:

Installation of Class I and/or Class II power transformers of a minimum of 500 kVA and larger that include:

a. Installing a transformer to existing systems; and

b. Installation with tight spacial constraints.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant installation experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as configuration and dimensions to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – Schedule

Submission Requirements:

1. Proposals shall include an overall project schedule to verify the Offeror’s experience in understanding the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, installation, commissioning and testing, key milestones, and contract required schedule constraints. Submitted schedule shall include a narrative and Gantt chart format using Microsoft Office Project format (minimum accepted format). Show task durations, including Government review times for submittals where applicable, start and finish milestones, and relationships.

2. For proposal evaluation purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice of Award:

Notice of Award date of September 09, 2016

At a minimum, the schedule shall include the following activities for each transformer:

• Design, review, and approval

• Manufacturing and factory test

• Transportation and Delivery of Transformers

• Site mobilization

• Removal and disposal/relocation of existing transformers

• Transformer installation, connection, testing, and commissioning

• Return to Service

• As-builts, O&M Manuals, closeout

• Critical path

• Identify who is doing the work

Narrative. Provide a schedule narrative to describe:

a. The design process;

b. The manufacturing process;

c. Removal and disposal/relocation of existing transformers;

d. Installation, connection, testing, and commissioning;

e. Return to Service

Include necessary, extra, or unusual efficiencies that will be required to meet the schedule. The maximum allowable schedule shall not exceed the stated duration specified in Contract Clause, FAR 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.

The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the scope and complexity, and the Offeror’s capability to execute the project.

Factor 2 will be rated more favorably if:

The project schedule clearly demonstrates a return to service date that is significantly earlier than required by the Contract, rather than simply demonstrating an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of the project.

Significantly shorter duration is defined as a minimum of eight (8) weeks. This shorter duration schedule must be accompanied with a narrative that explains how the shorter duration will be achieved and what measures will be taken to ensure that work will not deviate from the proposed earlier schedule.

Note: if the Offeror is awarded the Contract, and the submitted proposal includes a Schedule that demonstrates a return to service date that is significantly shorter than required by the Contract, the Government will incorporate the schedule into FAR Clause 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work to reflect the offered duration. If the Notice of Award milestone is delayed, the schedule incorporated into the contract will reflect a day for day adjustment.

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on its own past performance and/or Joint Venture Partners, and on the past performance of any Major Subcontractors and/or Suppliers. Offerors will be evaluated based on the information provided in the proposal and any other available information determined appropriate by the Government.

When evaluating past performance the following will be taken into consideration:

a. The relevance of the project to the requirements of the solicitation. Relevancy of past performance information will be determined on the same basis as under Factor 1. The proposal will be considered more relevant if the projects submitted under Factor 2 are included in the past performance submission.

b. How well the contractor performed on recent projects.

c. Trends in the Offeror’s past performance.

d. The number of problems, type and severity of the problems, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to ensure progress with project completion to minimize the schedule and cost impacts, and overall quality.

e. Evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers.

f. Negative comments may negatively impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance. If the negative past performance information (either pertaining to the Offeror or any of the Offeror’s major subcontractors) adversely impacts an Offeror’s proposal assessment, the Offeror will have an opportunity to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. This opportunity may occur during clarifications, communications or discussions, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, dependent upon whether discussions are anticipated, and, if they are, if they have been opened. At no time during this process, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror’s past performance be revealed to a third party.

The Government reserves the right to verify claims made by the Offeror and not to consider relevant those projects that are not substantiated.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Instructions: The Offeror shall use the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in this solicitation. If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available. When completing the PPQ, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. However, if the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal due date, the Offeror shall, at a minimum, submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ with blocks 1 through 4, as well as block 5 completed. This will allow the Government an opportunity to contact the client directly.

Additionally, if the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly from the client to the Government’s point of contact. In such cases, the client may submit to the Government point of contact listed in Block 7 of Standard Form 33.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal any PPQs previously submitted for other Solicitations/Requests for Proposals. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review 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 CPARS, using all CAGE/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.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated current and relevant past record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The Government will conduct a performance assessment based on the relevancy of the Offeror's current and past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors and fabricators, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. These efforts include all aspects of schedule, performance and customer support, including the Offeror’s submitted subcontracting plan for this project and the Offeror’s record of: 1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) Maintaining program execution within price; 3) Adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) Ability to resolve technical and manufacturing problems quickly and effectively; 5) Businesslike concern for the interest of its customers; 6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 7) Compliance with subcontracting plans submitted on previous projects.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/current efforts gathered (documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment). Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s 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 relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

FACTOR 4 -- Small Business Participation Plan

The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work to be performed by Small Businesses as prime or subcontractors in relation to the total value of the project, as well as the types of work small businesses will be performing, and the Offeror’s past performance complying with contract requirements contained in clauses FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR.52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Submission Requirements:

1. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall submit the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) template attached to this solicitation. A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 10% of the total contract value (through small business participation from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUB Zone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses is required based on the nature of the work for this project. The offeror should articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as either a small business prime or as a subcontractor, as well as demonstrating their past performance in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

2. Offeror’s are required to submit information that can be verified on at least three projects that demonstrate the degree (both by dollar and by percent of total contract value) to which the contractor utilized small business firms in performing the project. For small business Offeror’s, consideration will be given to self-performance if a small business for that project, as well as for providing subcontracting opportunities to small businesses - as is the policy of the government.

For large business Offeror’s, in addition to the information for the three required projects, consideration may also include review of ISR’s (Individual Subcontract Reports) and SSR’s (Summary Subcontract Report) from the eSRS (Electronic

Subcontracting Reporting System). The project information submitted for the small business participation plan evaluation does not have to be the same as those listed in Factor 1.

Evaluation criteria:

Using the SBPP template found attached to this solicitation, the government will evaluate Offeror’s on the extent of the planned participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition as follows:

1. The total level of participation of small business prime Offeror’s and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition vs the large business participation percentage.

2. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 10% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

In addition to the mandatory Small Business goal of 10% of the TOTAL contract value, 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 10% of TOTAL contract value:

{5%} Small Disadvantaged Business {2%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {.5%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {2%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {.5%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

3. Identification of the firms, as defined in FAR Part 19 (small-, small disadvantaged-, HUB Zone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses) are specifically identified in proposal by name (for Large Business prime ability to verify in the subcontracting plan as well) and the complexity and variety of the work (work requiring specific certifications i.e.

welding, mechanical, electrical, fabrication, supply, etc.) to be provided by small businesses.

4. The extent (i.e. length of and formality considerations) of demonstrated commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments (JV, MP or written teaming agreements, DFARS 215-304(c)(i)C) will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones.

5. Verifiable past performance of the Offeror’s in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, (both small and Large businesses) and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business primes only).

NOTE: For Large Businesses only. No award can be made until a firm required to submit a subcontracting plan has an acceptable plan in place. The plan’s goals must conform to the goals provided in the Small Business Participation Plan (taking into account total dollars subcontracted vs. total contract value as basis for development of the goals) and must contain the mandatory plan requirements outlined in FAR 19.704.

Factor 5– Price Offerors must submit completed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with unit price, quantity, and extended price. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating. However, it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

a. Completeness - To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary to evaluate the price. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

b. Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a) (1) and 15.404-1(b). For price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), and technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror. The Offeror's price will be evaluated to determine if any are unreasonably high or low in relation to the anticipated work under the contract, as well as with current industry standards.

(End of Summary of Changes)