Amendment 0001 W912EF21R0015.pdf

W68SBV11532941

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

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: McNary Intake Gates and Isophase Bus Systems

This amendment incorporates the changes outlined below .

The proposal submission date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jun-2021

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 W912EF21R0015

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Jun-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

24-Jun-2021

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:

W912EF21R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

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

The relative importance between factors is as follows:

• Factor 1, Technical Work Plan & Schedule is equal in importance to Factor 3, Past Performance.

• Both Factors 1 Technical Work Plan & Schedule and 3 Past Performance are more important than Factor 2, Technical Experience.

• All sub-factors of Factor 2 are equal in importance.

• Factors 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 individually, are more important than Factor 4, Small Business

Participation.

• When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4) are significantly more important than Factor

5, Price.

Contract award will be made as a whole to one offeror. As proposals become more equal in their technical (non-price) merit, the evaluated price becomes more important in determining the best value proposal.

The following paragraphs B through E cover the Factors and Sub-Factors to be evaluated, the evaluation approach for each Factor and Sub-Factor to include factor rating tables, Proposal Submission requirements, and discussion guidance.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

FACTOR 1: Technical Work Plan & Schedule –the Technical Work Plan & Schedule Factor is comprised of three Sections. This Factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required scope of work, identifying the major tasks and outlining all major work necessary to complete those tasks. The three Sections are 1) Schedule 2) Schedule Narrative and 3) Contractor Roles.

Risk will be evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor ratings. Risk assesses the degree to which the offerors proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

• Factor 1 – Technical Work Plan & Schedule

FACTOR 2: Technical Experience - The Technical Experience factor is comprised of three Sub-Factors.

Information provided by the offeror in support of each sub-factor will be evaluated based on its relevance to the Scope of Work. An overall rating for Factor 2 Technical Experience will be based on the merits of each sub-factor. There is not a specified page limit for the technical Sub-Factors, but offerors are encouraged to be clear and concise in providing the information requested.

Risk will be evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or sub-factor ratings. Risk assesses the degree to which the offerors proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

• Sub-factor 2A – High Voltage Electrical Systems

• Sub-factor 2B – Hydraulic Systems

• Sub-factor 2C – Construction Management

FACTOR 3: Past Performance - Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality.

FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation – The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

FACTOR 5: Price - The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 1 – Technical Work Plan & 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 Technical Work Plan and Schedule Factor 1 will be separated into three sections: 1) Schedule 2) Schedule Narrative and 3) Contractor Roles.

a. Factor 1: Technical Work Plan & Schedule

SECTION 1: SCHEDULE – Develop and submit a pre-award schedule consisting of the two parts described in greater detail below. Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management software is the only accepted format for the schedule included in the Offerors proposal. The schedules shall be presented on 11x17 Gannt chart(s) showing project relationships and other key information (i.e. activity names, durations, start/end dates, total float.) Primavera P6 files (e.g. “xer” export file) shall be included with the proposal.

Part 1: OVERALL SCHEDULE – Develop a project schedule for the entire project duration from contract award to contract closeout. This overall schedule should be a schedule that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the requirements of this solicitation. It should include the completion of all base-bid 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.

Part 2: DETAILED SCHEDULE FOR 2025 ON-SITE WORK – Develop a separate, detailed schedule for the on-site work in 2025 (encompassing main unit outage THREE). The schedule will include all on-site work between the anticipated interim mobilization and demobilization dates for the period. The schedule will include all Government performed items, show the interrelationship of the schedule for the intake gates/isophase portions of the work (particularly for work performed on/from the intake deck and during commissioning phases), show all preparatory activities performed prior to the main unit outage start date, and all activities after the main unit outage end date until interim demobilization for the year.

Both Part 1 and Part 2 schedules shall be prepared in Primavera P6. The Government will utilize the P6 files to examine schedule logic and other schedule details that may not be readily visible on the printed schedules included in the proposal. The Government will also conduct a diagnostic review of the P6 files to identify:

1. Use of inappropriate schedule logic (i.e. lags should not be used to replace appropriate logic, leads (negative lags) and start-to-finish relationships should not be used).

2. Inappropriate use of constraints to restrict schedule calculations (constraints other than those dates identified in the Contract Clause, FAR 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work should not be used).

3. Appropriate calendars are used for Government activities as defined in specification 01 14 00.10 28 – Project Site Restrictions

For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice to Proceed date of 10 December 2021. Consistent with the PROJECT SCHEDULE Specification the offeror’s DRAFT schedules (Part 1 and Part 2) should clearly delineate:

1. For each line or activity on the schedule, identify:

a. The activity name and/or description

b. Start and end dates

c. Duration in days

d. Running count of total float in [days]

2. Show interdependencies between work activities or tasks

3. Clearly identify the critical path

4. The following milestones must be clearly represented on the schedule:

a. Notice to proceed

b. Interim mobilization/demobilization dates

c. Each main unit outage start and end dates

d. Each station service unit start and end dates

e. Contract completion

5. The following phases or specific tasks must be represented on the schedule

a. Preconstruction activities including preparation of submittals and Government review of submittals (accounting for contract defined review times) for significant material items.

b. Equipment procurement and delivery, identifying items with particularly long lead times.

c. Pre-main unit outage, on-site activities

d. Higher level main unit outage on-site activities (for Part 1: Overall Schedule)

e. Station service unit outage, on-site activities, including testing and commissioning

f. Post-main outage, on-site activities

g. Training of Government personnel

h. Preparation, submittal, and Government review of operation and maintenance manuals and as-built drawings.

6. Additional details only for Part 2: Detailed Schedule For 2025 On-Site Work must include the following items:

a. Detailed on-site construction activities encompassing main unit outage THREE.

b. All Government performed activities (i.e. lockout/tagout, headgate/bulkhead/fishscreen moves using crane 5, installation/removal of tailrace stoplogs, dewatering/watering of unit, government commissioning activities, etc.) (See Work Sequence Specification 01 12

16.00 26 and Project Site Restrictions 01 14 00.10 28)

c. Detailed testing and commissioning sequences.

SECTION 2: SCHEDULE NARRATIVE - Submit a ten page maximum narrative that explains the proposed schedules and details the Offerors schedule management approach to ensure successful completion of the project and compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative should include a description of the intended method of coordinating Government work activities that are integrated in the on-site work. The narrative shall include necessary, extra, or unusual efficiencies that will be required to meet the schedule. The maximum allowable schedule shall not exceed the stated durations specified in Contract Clause, FAR 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.

SECTION 3: CONTRACTOR ROLES - Submit a work plan that designates whether the Offeror will be self-performing, or sub-contracting the major sub-portions of work indicated below:

• Construction management (superintendence, quality control, safety management)

• Installation of isolated phase bus

• Installation of motor operated disconnect switches

• Design of hydraulic power system and components

• Fabrication and shop testing of hydraulic power system and components

• Installation of hydraulic power system and components

If the Offeror proposes to use a subcontractor for one of the sub-portions of the work defined above, the proposal must include a signed letter of commitment from the subcontractor. The letter of commitment must clearly identify the role of the subcontractor and what portion of the work they will be performing.

The work plan does not need to identify subcontractors performing portions of the work other than defined above. If an Offeror elects to identify other key subcontractors in their proposal, a signed letter of commitment from the subcontractor must be included in the proposal. The letter of commitment must clearly identify the role of the subcontractor and what portion of the work they will be performing.

If the Offeror proposes a joint venture, the proposal must include a joint venture agreement signed by all participating firms. The agreement must identify the role of each party.

Technical Factor Ratings: ratings outlined below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

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 un-awardable.

Factor 2 – Technical Experience

a. Sub-factor 2A: High Voltage Electrical Systems

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 2A:

Provide past project information on relevant projects that best demonstrate the breadth and depth of an Offeror’s and/or their subcontractor’s relevant experience with high voltage electrical systems. If a subcontractor is identified in Factor 1 to perform work on the high voltage electrical systems, the experience of that subcontractor must be represented in the submitted project information. If a subcontractor’s experience is included in Factor 2, that subcontractor must be identified in Factor 1.

Submit a minimum of three and maximum of five relevant projects. If the proposal includes more than five projects, only the first five projects, in the order they appear in the proposal, will be evaluated.

Projects must have been completed within seven years of the date of issue of the RFP or ongoing. Ongoing or partially completed projects will only be considered if the portion of the work being submitted has been completed and accepted by the customer. For ongoing or partially completed projects offerors must submit percentage completed.

The combined experience demonstrated by the submitted projects must cover the relevancy requirements listed below. It is not required that each project cover all of the relevancy requirements.

The relevancy requirements are:

• Submitted projects should demonstrate experience with the installation and commissioning of 15kV or higher isolated phase bus.

• Submitted projects should demonstrate experience with installation and commissioning of 115kV and 230kV high-voltage systems and components such as:

o Surge arresters o High-voltage tubular busses o Motor Operated Disconnect (MOD) switches and manually operated grounding switches o Motor Control Centers o Low voltage AC and DC power and control systems o Work involving large oil filled electrical transformers that includes, but is not limited to, movement of transformers.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant experience. Project experience should include adequate detail to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation and must include at minimum:

1. General description of the work performed on the project

2. Discussion of the disciplines of work involved

3. Discussion of any significant schedule challenges or limitations

4. A detailed description of the design, fabrication, installation, shop testing and/or field commissioning experience involved with the project. Any engineering drawings and sketches, if submitted, must be accompanied by narrative explaining the drawings and sketches.

Evaluation Method:

When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, the Government will consider the following:

• Projects that involve experiences with low, medium, and high voltage systems will be considered more relevant and evaluated more favorably than projects involving work with only medium, or only high voltage class equipment.

• Submitted projects that include work with MODs that include surge resistors will be considered more relevant than projects involving work with other equipment.

• Submitted projects that demonstrate experience involving large oil filled electrical transformers that includes, but is not limited to, movement of transformers will be considered more relevant and evaluated more favorably than projects involving work with other equipment.

b. Sub-factor 2B: Hydraulic Systems

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 2B:

Provide past project information on relevant projects that best demonstrate the breadth and depth of an Offeror’s and/or their subcontractor’s relevant experience with hydraulic systems. If a subcontractor is identified in Factor 1 to perform work on the hydraulic system, the experience of that subcontractor must be represented in the submitted project information. If a subcontractor’s experience is included in Factor 2, that subcontractor must be identified in Factor 1.

Submit a minimum of three and maximum of five relevant projects. If the proposal includes more than five projects, only the first five projects, in the order they appear in the proposal, will be evaluated. Projects must have been completed within seven years of the date of issue of the RFP or ongoing. Ongoing or partially completed projects will only be considered if the portion of the work being submitted has been completed and accepted by the customer.

The combined experience demonstrated by the submitted projects must cover the relevancy requirements listed below. It is not required that each project cover all of the relevancy requirements.

The relevancy requirements are:

• Submitted projects should involve hydraulic systems with a rated operating pressure of 3000 psi or greater.

• Only experience with industrial or precision type hydraulics is considered relevant. Experience with mobile hydraulics is considered not relevant and will not be evaluated.

• Submitted projects must demonstrate experience with the following aspects of hydraulic power systems:

o Design, including but not limited to, system design and integration of sub-components, selection of off the shelf components such as valves, configuration of manifolds and control panels, design, and configuration of hydraulic power units.

o Fabrication of custom hydraulic components or systems, such as: hydraulic power units, manifolds and control panels, large hydraulic cylinders.

o Installation, of the equipment referenced above.

o Shop testing, of the equipment referenced above.

o Field commissioning, of the equipment referenced above.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant experience. Project experience should include adequate detail to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation and must include at minimum:

1. General description of the work performed on the project

2. Discussion of the disciplines of work involved

3. Discussion of any significant schedule challenges or limitations

4. Configuration of the system and description of what type of equipment is being operated with the hydraulic system.

5. Include a detailed description of the design, fabrication, installation, shop testing and/or field commissioning experience involved with the project. Any engineering drawings and sketches, if submitted, must be accompanied by narrative explaining the drawings and sketches.

Evaluation Method:

When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, the Government will consider the following:

• Proposals that demonstrate experience with hydraulic power systems that use environmentally acceptable lubricants (as defined by VGP 2013) as a hydraulic fluid will be considered more relevant than proposals that demonstrate experience with hydraulic power systems that use conventional hydraulic fluids.

• Projects that involve use of hydraulics with water control structures such as turbine intake gates, spillway gates, regulating outlet gates or valves, or navigation lock gates will be more considered more relevant than projects involving work on or at other equipment.

• Submitted projects that include a hydraulic power system rated for less than 3000 psi will be evaluated but will be considered significantly less relevant and evaluated less favorably.

• Submitted projects that include hydraulic cylinders with a stroke length of over 20 feet will be considered more relevant than projects that include cylinders with a shorter stroke.

c. Sub-factor 2C: Construction Management Experience

Proposals will be evaluated to determine construction management experience relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation.

Provide past project information on relevant projects that best demonstrate the breadth and depth of an Offeror’s relevant experience with construction management.

Submit a minimum of three up to a maximum of five projects that have been completed within the last seven years that collectively meet all of the relevancy requirements defined below. If the proposal includes more than five projects, only the first five projects, in the order they appear in the proposal, will be evaluated. Projects that are ongoing will not be considered.

The relevancy requirements are:

• Projects must involve work in an industrial setting, such as a powerhouse, manufacturing factory, fabrication shop, water treatment facility, sawmill or other similar facility. Projects that involve work in vertical type construction such as office building construction, commercial, or residential development is considered not relevant and will not be considered.

• Projects must involve managing and coordinating multiple disciplines or areas of work, such as electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, structural fabrication, civil or site work.

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

1. General description of the work performed on the project

2. Discussion of the disciplines of work involved

3. Discussion of any significant schedule challenges or limitations

4. Discussion of extent of owner involvement

Evaluation Criteria:

When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, the Government will consider the following:

• Projects that demonstrate experience managing work that is similar to the work defined in this RFP, such as work on industrial hydraulic systems or high voltage electrical systems, will be evaluated as more relevant than projects involving other areas of work.

• Projects that span multiple years will be evaluated as more relevant than projects that have a duration of one year or less.

• Demonstrated experience in coordination between multiple tiers of subcontractors or in work areas with multiple prime contracts will be evaluated more relevant.

• Projects that involve substantial owner participation and interaction will be evaluated more relevant than projects without substantial owner participation.

• Projects that are well below the immediate project’s construction magnitude as provided in the bid schedule will be considered less relevant and rated less favorably.

Technical Factor Ratings: ratings outlined below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

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 un-awardable.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractors’) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Past performance evaluation will be conducted for all subcontractors that are identified in Factor 1 – Section 3 Contractor Roles. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include the most current and relevant past performance efforts (within the past fifteen years) in their proposal. Absent any current and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System NAICS 237990, Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. Data submitted by the offeror or gathered from other sources by the government in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past fifteen years prior to the issue date of the RFP but may include performance data generated during the past fifteen years without regard to the contract award date.

CPARS data is limited to the past 6 years. Offeror’s should provide additional performance data for projects beyond 6yrs.

b. Offerors should submit all Government and/or commercial contract numbers and descriptions for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past fifteen years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

c. RECENCY: The Government will evaluate recency by examining the offerors’ record of past performance and to assess the time period during which the offeror’s past performance is considered relevant.

d. RELEVANCY: The Government will evaluate those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. This evaluation will include all aspects of the offeror’s execution of schedule, performance, customer support and subcontracting plan for these projects 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 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.

e. QUALITY: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The quality past performance evaluation conducted gathers information from the offeror’s customers to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts. This quality assessment will be reflected in the overall confidence assessment described below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: Because this source selection requires a greater level of discernment with the past performance evaluation, the SSEB shall use all ratings in the chart below and reach a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant efforts gathered (documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment). The rationale for the conclusions reached by the SSEB will be included in the SSEB report.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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 low expectation that the offeror will be able to 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.

Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small business concerns in performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. Proposals shall be submitted under a Small Business Participation proposal. Please note, the small business participation proposal is distinctly different than the Small Business Subcontracting plan required for large businesses only (FAR 52.219-9). The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms. The proposal will be rated more favorably under this sub-factor if it contains an enforceable commitment in the form of a signed letter of commitment (LOC);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals. The goals for this procurement are:

• Total Small Business (any type of small business) 10% of the total contract value (the sum of all CLINs);

• Subcategory Small Business o Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5 % of the total contract value;

o Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 2% of the total contract value;

o Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 1% of the total contract value;

o Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) 1% of the total contract value;

o Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 1% of the total contract value;

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions:

Small Business Participation Factor Ratings

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 meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives. Proposal is non-awardable.

1. Factor 4 – 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. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, the following will be used to resolve arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the pricing schedule as submitted by the offeror:

a. Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

b. In a discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

c. Calculation errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

d. Calculation errors in the addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

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 offerors 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 offerors price will be evaluated to determine if any are unreasonably high in relation to the anticipated work under the contract, as well as with current industry standards.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. The offerors proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies as set forth below. The solicitation shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submission. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. The electronic files shall contain identical information to the hard copies.

The offerors proposal shall consist of two volumes. The Volumes are:

Volume I – Technical, Past Performance Volume II – Small Business Participation, Price, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. Proposal Submission Requirements.

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

b. Printing shall be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

VOLUME TITLE PRINTED COPIES ELECTRONIC COPIES

Volume I Original + 5 1 Volume II Original + 1 1

d. Proposals shall conform to the solicitation requirements to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required of this solicitation.

3. Proposal Files.

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. All files created in MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11 X 17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations. The following additional restrictions apply:

a. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aid in the Price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

**The electronic files shall contain identical information to the hard copy files.

b . Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the data addressing each evaluation factor requirement. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

i. VOLUME I, TAB 1 -Technical Work Plan and Schedule.

(1) Section 1: Schedule

(2) Section 2: Schedule Narrative

(3) Section 3: Contractor Roles

i. VOLUME I, TAB 2 – Technical Experience The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Sub-factor A: High Voltage Electrical Systems Experience

(2) Sub-factor B: Hydraulic Systems Experience

(3) Sub-factor C: Construction Management Experience

(ii) VOLUME I, TAB 3 – Past Performance. This tab shall contain current and past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall submit Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major contract currently in performance or awarded during the past seven years, from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, signed letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors and fabricators for their past performance to be considered. This tab shall be organized into the following sections:

1. Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format. Ensure all information is current and accurate.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number or SAM Unique Entity Identification. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, (or private firm) and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative

Contracting Officer’s name, current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award point of contact name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order/Task Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price.

(i) Final or projected final price.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

2. Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 - Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns.

Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the offerors delivered product.

3. Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by this RFP will be assigned for performance within the offerors corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number or SAM Unique Entity Identification and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government technical specification. This includes all subcontractors, fabricators, and suppliers who are identified in Factor 1 – Section 3 Contractor Roles.

4. Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited to demonstrate the relevancy of experience and past performance with this solicitation. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Signed Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered. Letters of Commitment must be signed both by the company official and the employee.

5 . Section 5-Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1 - Contract

Descriptions, complete a Past Performance Questionnaire for any project that has not received a formal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to the technical representative responsible for the current and past contract. The Point of Contacts (POCs) shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to Hillary.A.Morgan@usace.army.mil. The offeror shall submit, with its proposal, a list of all the POCs who were sent questionnaires. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields:

Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

6. Section 6-Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(iii) VOLUME II, TAB 1 – Price. This tab shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices. Certified pricing data is not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. There are no page limitations for this tab.

The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this tab is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF1442 and continuation sheets.

(iv) VOLUME II, TAB 2 – Small Business Participation. See Appendix F, Enclosure 4, Small Business Participation Proposal. All offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal.